Labour people, its time to dump Corbyn

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

However the fact remains that EU immigration - in the quantities of skilled and unskilled we've had, in the numbers we've had, and to the locations we've had them come, has resulted in a net financial benefit to the UK public finances of billions of pounds per year.

EU Immigrants have subsidised the rest of us.

It is hardly the fault of those EU immigrants who pay in more than they take out, or of the businesses that employ them to alleviate staffing shortages and grow the economy and tax base, that the UK government has chosen to take that whopping subsidy and spend it on keeping taxes lower for the rest of us rather than investing it in infrastructure to alleviate public concerns.

there is no such benefits accruing from the overall level of immigration even on a short term income/spend basis; when one adds the huge backlog of housing, schooling, NHS, transport spending required to simply meet the needs of the increae in population, overall they are a big negative. The popluation also puts a huge pressure on the blance of trade and the value of the pound, but ther need for more imports without any corresponding exports.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

BarleyGB wrote: »

Can you evidence these facts (not political claims), id like to see a research paper which provides the details.

Here you go....

European immigrants to the UK paid much more in taxes than they received in benefits over the past decade, making a net fiscal contribution of £20bn, say researchers.

https://www.ft.com/content/c49043a8-6447-11e4-b219-00144feabdc0

And to break it down into net benefit by origin....

UCL researchers have established that so-called “A10 migrants” from eastern European countries that joined the EU in 2004 contributed nearly £5bn to the UK in the decade to 2011. Those from the original 15 EU members brought a net gain of £15bn over the same period.

By comparison, the UK-born population was a net cost.

https://www.ft.com/content/c49043a8-6447-11e4-b219-00144feabdc0

So the relatively high skilled 'Old EU' migrants pay in more than they take out, the relatively lower skilled 'New EU' migrants also pay in more than they take out, and the native born pay in less than they take out on average.

Link to the original UCL research paper here....

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Here you go....

https://www.ft.com/content/c49043a8-6447-11e4-b219-00144feabdc0

And to break it down into net benefit by origin....


https://www.ft.com/content/c49043a8-6447-11e4-b219-00144feabdc0

So the relatively high skilled 'Old EU' migrants pay in more than they take out, the relatively lower skilled 'New EU' migrants also pay in more than they take out, and the native born pay in less than they take out on average.

Link to the original UCL research paper here....

just love this bit

We also show that, if the marginal cost of providing fixed public goods to immigrants is (close
to) zero, then immigration, by sharing their provision costs among a larger pool of people, allows
substantial implicit savings to the native population. Overall, therefore, our analysis draws a
positive picture of fiscal effects immigration has had on the UK. In particular those immigrants
who arrived since 2000, and here especially those from the EEA countries, have – through their
positive net fiscal contribution – helped to reduce the fiscal burden for native workers.

so basically if you assume no increase costs associated in housing, transport, doctors, healthcare workers, imports etc then imigration is a benefit ; I suppose there is a financial calculation that says that a family living in a family sized house is less efficient that sweezing 10 migrate into the same house than you have to agree with them.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

CLAPTON wrote: »

just love this bit

so basically if you assume no increase costs associated

As always you fail to understand the details and then go off on a strawman tangent.

The study did not assume 'no increase costs'.

It did however quite rightly point out that the marginal costs of infrastructure usage for an additional few percent of the population are close to zero.

mrginge

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

So if the government 'took back control' of EU immigration and then decided, having spoken to businesses and job creators, that more EU immigration was needed in broadly the same mix of skilled and unskilled as we get today....

You'd be absolutely fine with that?

I doubt it....

I'm sure you do doubt it, however I've been very clear numerous times that that was indeed my exact view.

Now I don't expect other people to necessarily hold that same view but I am comfortable with that as lots of things in life are a compromise and we all have to get along. I've no issue with changing my view if circumstances change or other people make convincing counter arguments. That's what being a grown up is all about after all.

For example in the context of this thread I don't particularly like or believe the current labour strategy, but I can see the moral and social benefits of their fundamental position. Perhaps if they could be more credible economically I would be more persuaded by them.

Not like some who though who are entrenched in an permanent ideology, seem to think that their opinion is 100% correct and everyone else is an idiot. You know the type - usually they have a massive superiority complex and just love to trawl the internet searching for graphs or statistics that however random or badly constructed will support their self-important egomania. They love to find isolated stats to prove their point rather than looking at the bigger picture.

People like that are funny don't you think?

mrginge

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

As always you fail to understand the details and then go off on a strawman tangent.

The study did not assume 'no increase costs'.

It did however quite rightly point out that the marginal costs of infrastructure usage for an additional few percent of the population are close to zero.

Ah yes, the great statistical fudge we all know you enjoy so much.
Marginal cost is such a fine number to use in this case, since you can as you say increase up to capacity with near zero increase.
However as you will know, when you reach capacity and you then have to build a new school, the marginal cost suddenly jumps to X million for that one single addition.

great work Hamish!

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

As always you fail to understand the details and then go off on a strawman tangent.

The study did not assume 'no increase costs'.

It did however quite rightly point out that the marginal costs of infrastructure usage for an additional few percent of the population are close to zero.

just as my marginal use of the uK facilities is also zero: in fact the marginal use of UK by any and all small groups is zero.

you as always totally refuse to acknowledge that there is ahuge backlog of spending on infrastructure due to the increase in population

and of course you totally ignore the decrease in housing standards, access to NHS, transport etc

Herzlos

CLAPTON wrote: »

just as my marginal use of the uK facilities is also zero: in fact the marginal use of UK by any and all small groups is zero.

you as always totally refuse to acknowledge that there is ahuge backlog of spending on infrastructure due to the increase in population

and of course you totally ignore the decrease in housing standards, access to NHS, transport etc

Do you want to put a cost on the extra infrastructure consumed by the average migrant then? And the cost in total for that infrastructure?

I bet you 20p the former as a percentage of the latter is near zero.

BarleyGB

Filo25 wrote: »

From a very quick google

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1114/051114-economic-impact-EU-immigration
http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/brexit05.pdf

Its not exactly surprising given that most EU immigrants tend to be relatively young and economically active

Its not surprising at all, articles present the fact that EU migrants receive less in benefits than they pay in tax, and marginal appropriation of other costs. One of the reports linked later in the thread was written by fully signed up Eurocrat.

Hamish you stated there was as a 'fact' that migrants present a net financial benefit to the UK, you stated that EU migrants subsidise the rest of us.

I would like to see evidence for this, evidence that takes account of not just 'benefits' but also the cost of education, healthcare, transport, local services.

Can evidence your 'facts'

BarleyGB

I'll make it easy for you, total national & local spending in 2015 was £756 billion, thats an average tax spend of £11800 per person (including retired and in education)

What is the average tax contribution per migrant (not just those working), is it more than £11800?