Economic benefits of immigration mask severl concentrated challenges

Graham_Devon

Different take on the immigration debate. And please don't write it off straight away, it doesn't support UKIP policy.

The graphs at the top of the page are interesting as it explores how in work benefits make it much more beneficial for immigrants to head to the UK, over and above what they would earn if they relied solely on their wages here.

Unlike the vast majority of EU countries, the UK makes in-work benefits – tax credits, social housing and access to the NHS – immediately available to EU migrants. In contrast to out-of-work benefits, EU migrants are marginally more likely to claim in-work benefits. EU migrants make up 5.56 per cent of the UK workforce, but families with at least one EU migrant make up 7.7 per cent of in-work tax credit claims.

The UK’s in-work benefit system effectively acts as a sort of “taxpayer-backed subsidy” for European workers to perform low-paid jobs here. In some cases, take-home pay is topped up by almost two-thirds. In many cases, it pays to go from an average-paid job elsewhere in the EU to a minimum-wage job in the UK. Which is why, in a report published by Open Europe today, we propose new rules which would allow national governments to limit EU migrants’ access to such benefits. This would have a radical impact. For example, it would halve the financial incentive for a single worker from Poland to come here to work on the minimum wage, while the average weekly income would drop by 8 per cent for a Spanish worker in a similar situation. A Polish single earner with two dependent children would see their average weekly income drop by 27 per cent if they were to move to Britain, while under the present rulings, it would nearly double. Taking away this in-work subsidy would be a neat way of addressing the public’s most pressing concerns about EU migration, but without ending free movement.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11249200/A-just-way-to-manage-migration.html

So, would you support taking away in work benefits from immigrants arriving in the country?

As the article states,, in some cases, if a low skilled worker comes to the UK, two thirds of his wages are infact benefits, straight away. Take this away, and how many would arrive?

jjlandlord

Graham_Devon wrote: »

As the article states, if a low skilled worker comes to the UK, two thirds of his wages are infact benefits, straight away.

You forgot 'almost' and 'in some cases' (they don't say how many is that).

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Different take on the immigration debate. And please don't write it off straight away, it doesn't support UKIP policy.

The graphs at the top of the page are interesting as it explores how in work benefits make it much more beneficial for immigrants to head to the UK, over and above what they would earn if they relied solely on their wages here.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11249200/A-just-way-to-manage-migration.html

So, would you support taking away in work benefits from immigrants arriving in the country?

As the article states, if a low skilled worker comes to the UK, two thirds of his wages are infact benefits, straight away. Take this away, and how many would arrive?

whether or not the UK benefits are more or less generous for EU migrant compared to other EU countries, has nothing to do with the real economic disadvantages of a higher population from a UK perspective.

jjlandlord

CLAPTON wrote: »

the real economic disadvantages of a higher population from a UK perspective.

There is no economic disadvantage whatsoever in having a larger population.

chewmylegoff

CLAPTON wrote: »

whether or not the UK benefits are more or less generous for EU migrant compared to other EU countries, has nothing to do with the real economic disadvantages of a higher population from a UK perspective.

Nevertheless, the removal of in work benefits until a qualifying period (say 2 years of full time employment or some such equivalent of self employment with associated tax an NI being paid) has been 'served' would potentially improve things for everyone concerned and kill all the arguments about whether immigrants contribute and whether they are just coming over here to claim benefits (as they wouldn't be able to).

Presumably given you oppose large population increases any measure which reduces the "pull" factors for EU immigrants would be welcome?

My OH is a (non EU) immigrant and as far as I understand had no recourse to benefits or non-emergency NHS treatment until she had been here 5 years and paid for indefinite leave to remain (£1k on top of all the tax and NI she had already received). No doubt such arrangements for EU citizens would reduce immigration from the EU if the benefits here are in fact a significant pull factor.

leveller2911

chewmylegoff wrote: »

No doubt such arrangements for EU citizens would reduce immigration from the EU if the benefits here are in fact a significant pull factor.

According to Hamish EU migrants come here to work and don't claim benefits so its really a non story.

The supposed 250,000 EU migrants claiming in-work benefits must be a mirage or a UKIP conspiracy.

I really wish they would bring back the "roll eyes" smiley....

Graham_Devon

jjlandlord wrote: »

There is no economic disadvantage whatsoever in having a larger population.

There are plenty if you don't upgrade the infrastructure to cope.

Power grid, roads (hauliers are already at a disadvantage over their EU counterparts when it comes to delivery times), sewers, hospitals, schools.

All of which have knock on effects to the economy.

If you removed in work benefits from those coming here, it's more likely you'd atract less migrants, while still attracting the higher skilled migrants. Those migrants are the ones who pay further taxes and therefore could support infrastructure upgrades (if the will from the government was there).

CLAPTON

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Nevertheless, the removal of in work benefits until a qualifying period (say 2 years of full time employment or some such equivalent of self employment with associated tax an NI being paid) has been 'served' would potentially improve things for everyone concerned and kill all the arguments about whether immigrants contribute and whether they are just coming over here to claim benefits (as they wouldn't be able to).

Presumably given you oppose large population increases any measure which reduces the "pull" factors for EU immigrants would be welcome?

My OH is a (non EU) immigrant and as far as I understand had no recourse to benefits or non-emergency NHS treatment until she had been here 5 years and paid for indefinite leave to remain (£1k on top of all the tax and NI she had already received). No doubt such arrangements for EU citizens would reduce immigration from the EU if the benefits here are in fact a significant pull factor.

I want the 'best' living experience for the peoples of the UK.
In my view the increase in population over the last 10 years or so have reduced the quality of the life of the people of the UK.

I don't really have a feel for all the reasons of why people come here but logically the availability of free money must be a factor.
I know many young EU migrants and they haven't, in fact, come because of benefits or indeed of unemployment: they have all come because they wanted the experience of living here.

My view is about the shear numbers that have chosen to settle here and the resulting decrease in the quality of life.

I don't wish to pry into your personal circumstances, but I am curious about your OH's experience of the NHS : if they required non-emergency health care does the NHS refuse or charge or what?

jjlandlord

Graham_Devon wrote: »

There are plenty if you don't upgrade the infrastructure to cope.

Power grid, roads (hauliers are already at a disadvantage over their EU counterparts when it comes to delivery times), sewers, hospitals, schools.

All of which have knock on effects to the economy.

That's a straw man argument, because these are not economic disadvantage of a larger population.

I'm not saying that it would be great to live in the UK at 200 million population, just that there is no value in making stuff up.

Graham_Devon

jjlandlord wrote: »

That's a straw man argument, because these are not economic disadvantage of a larger population.

OK.

So the lights going out wouldn't be an economic disadvantage?

You might have missed the reports about how close we are now to blackouts due to increased usage on the grid.

Hauliers stuck in traffic jams on roads which were never built to cope with such traffic flows are not an economic disadvantage?

For reference...

The costs of traffic congestion are forecast to rise faster in the UK than in France, Germany and the US, with Londoners particularly badly affected, according to research published on Tuesday.

The Centre for Economics and Business Research and Inrix, a traffic information provider, found that the cost of congestion to the London economy was $8.5bn in 2013, and would rise to $14.5bn in 2030. The cumulative cost over that period would be more than $200bn.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a50158ee-52de-11e4-a236-00144feab7de.html#axzz3K72lfDTa

I assume they are "making stuff up" too?

jjlandlord

Please, read and think before digging yourself deeper.

What you say are, again, clearly not economic disadvantage of a larger population.
At most, they can be temporary effects of too fast a population increase.

Germany has ~20 million more people, and they do not seem to have blackouts, or chaos on roads, hospitals and school.
Many third world countries have a much smaller population but have all these problems.

Let's cut the cr*p for a second.