The EU: IN or OUT?

Daniel54

treemachine wrote: »

So? Benefits aren't the only thing that the taxpayer has to provide for EU migrants. By the time you include schools/ housing/ healthcare and transport etc you find EU migrants are a drain to the taxpayer.....

EU migrants pay tax and NI,just as you do.

So what are they a "drain"and you are not?

Nearlyold

BananaRepublic wrote: »

I can see that unified regulations for electronic products sold within the EU makes sense, safety laws for example. But I think the EU controls the nature of products we sell outside the EU, and also has a say 'social' laws, such as human rights, including deportation of criminals. I can't see why they have to have a say in our laws outside of regulations for intra-EU trade.

Hi could someone explain in what way the EU has a say in social laws such as human rights including the deportation of criminals?

treemachine

Daniel54 wrote: »

EU migrants pay tax and NI,just as you do.

So what are they a "drain"and you are not?

Ehhhmmm, because I'm paid far more than the minimum wage?


EU migrants working for minimum wage are unlikely to contribute more in tax than they take out....


Someone earning £14,000 a year (near enough a full time job earning minimum wage) will pay £1,300 a year in tax an NI. The NHS costs circa £2,000 a year (on average) for each citizen of the UK... It's fair to say many EU migrants are a drain to the UK....

Scarpacci

atush wrote: »

And EU immigrants pay more in taxes than they take in benefits. According to the latest statistics available.

This sounds like a grand statement but all it really means is that most EU immigrants tend to be working age adults. They're not school kids or pensioners, so they should typically be net contributors to the system.

It's kind of meaningless spin from the politicians to claim this in any way separates them from a large chunk of the voting population. Are we as a nation actively seeking new contributors? Why stop at 300,000 when we could add 500,000 people to pay into the pot?

Also, it ignores any huge upfront capital expenditure necessary to accommodate large increases in the population. Adding hundreds of thousands of people each year who are nominally contributing more than they receive is fine until you need to build a new school or hospital to cope. Of course, you could do what our set of politicians did and not build any more schools or hospitals. Then everybody just muddles by with more crowded classrooms, longer waiting times for GPs and doctors, and make everybody's life that bit poorer.

Linton

treemachine wrote: »

Ehhhmmm, because I'm paid far more than the minimum wage?


EU migrants working for minimum wage are unlikely to contribute more in tax than they take out....


Someone earning £14,000 a year (near enough a full time job earning minimum wage) will pay £1,300 a year in tax an NI. The NHS costs circa £2,000 a year (on average) for each citizen of the UK... It's fair to say many EU migrants are a drain to the UK....

Your assumptions are open to question....
Do you think that EU migrants working on minimum wage, presumably in agriculture, are of average cost to the NHS?

Your logic is open to question.....
If UK workers were doing the same work but being paid more they presumably would cost the rest of us the same in NHS costs plus the extra wages.

And of course many EU migrants arent agricultural workers on minimum wage but do other jobs - eg £n00K city types, £40K university lecturers, £oodles plumbers etc etc

treemachine

Linton wrote: »

Your assumptions are open to question....
Do you think that EU migrants working on minimum wage, presumably in agriculture, are of average cost to the NHS?

Your logic is open to question.....
If UK workers were doing the same work but being paid more they presumably would cost the rest of us the same in NHS costs plus the extra wages.

And of course many EU migrants arent agricultural workers on minimum wage but do other jobs - eg £n00K city types, £40K university lecturers, £oodles plumbers etc etc

I'd assume migrants working in agriculture/ construction would be of higher average cost to the NHS. Is that the point you were making?


Perhaps you have some peer reviewed evidence that shows EU migrants pay in more than they take out?

Daniel54

treemachine wrote: »

Perhaps you have some peer reviewed evidence that shows EU migrants pay in more than they take out?

This was published in the Economic Journal under the aegis of the Royal Economic society.

http://www.cream-migration.org/files/FiscalEJ.pdf

One of their key findings I quote below

Between 2001 and 2011, the net fiscal contribu- tions of recent A10 immigrants amounted to almost £5 billion, those of the other recently arrived European immigrants to £15 billion, and those of recent non- European immigrants to a total of over £5 billion. Remarkably, over the same period, the natives’ fiscal cost amounted to almost £617 billion.

treemachine

Daniel54 wrote: »

This was published in the Economic Journal under the aegis of the Royal Economic society.


One of their key findings I quote below

Between 2001 and 2011, the net fiscal contribu- tions of recent A10 immigrants amounted to almost £5 billion, those of the other recently arrived European immigrants to £15 billion, and those of recent non- European immigrants to a total of over £5 billion. Remarkably, over the same period, the natives’ fiscal cost amounted to almost £617 billion.

Dustmann and Frattini? Were they not the chancers that estimated that East Europe migration to the UK would be 8,000 to 13,000 a year?


Wow! An extra £25 billion over 10 years!! That's an extra 80 pence a week for each man, woman and child in the UK!!


Ohh, hold on a moment. Your research has been widely discredited.....


.migrationwatchuk.org/pdfs/BP1_37.pdf



So your "evidence" shows that EU migration contributes virtually nothing to the UK... Then when you look at your "evidence" further it turns out the authors were making unrealistic assumptions.... It then turns out EU migration is a cost...

treemachine

Hi Daniel54,


Yeah the report you linked to was by the same professor that forecast an extra 13,000 East European migrants a year.


"The economist who predicted that opening UK borders to 10 new EU countries in 2004 would increase the population by 13,000 a year has accused MPs of misinterpreting his figures."


"Politicians have said the forecast was "spectacularly wrong" and "laughable"."




http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21682810

doe808

treemachine wrote: »

Dustmann and Frattini? Were they not the chancers that estimated that East Europe migration to the UK would be 8,000 to 13,000 a year?


Wow! An extra £25 billion over 10 years!! That's an extra 80 pence a week for each man, woman and child in the UK!!


Ohh, hold on a moment. Your research has been widely discredited.....


.migrationwatchuk.org/pdfs/BP1_37.pdf



So your "evidence" shows that EU migration contributes virtually nothing to the UK... Then when you look at your "evidence" further it turns out the authors were making unrealistic assumptions.... It then turns out EU migration is a cost...

Not caught up on this thread, but quoting migration watch to prove a point doesn't give it much weight.

Probably better to give some peer reviewed evidence. It make your points more credible.

Thanks