Brexit, The Economy and House Prices (Part 2)

Rusty_Shackleton

Rinoa wrote: »

You're not going to find the data because it isn't there.

True, some will contribute by paying taxes, but unskilled migrants on minimum wage don't pay taxes, they receive health care and schooling for their kids (around £3k p.a per pupil) and enjoy a free house (average price £200,000?) just for being here.

Easy to see what attracts them, I'd do the same if I were them. But economically it's a very bad deal for UK plc.

Well it was pretty easy to find some sources to prove you wrong:

Full Fact

Immigrants who arrived in the UK since 2000 contribute more in taxes than they receive in benefits and other state assistance, on average. That’s based on research analysing the years from 2001 to 2011.

For those from the EU the picture was most positive: they were estimated to have contributed £1.34 for every £1 they took out......
The same research found those from outside the EU put in £1.02 for every £1 received.

and

EU immigrants living in the UK are thought to have contributed £1.05 for every £1 received and, for non-EU immigrants, 85 pence for every £1.

Non-EU immigrants are more likely to have had children while in the UK than EU immigrants. Counting the cost of those children’s education is one reason why the contributions are lower than the receipts for this group.

So when those kids grow up, they'll contribute more to the economy. If the kids don't stay, it's probably because the kids left, which means the 1st gen immigrants will cost less in healthcare in the long run.

Also seeThe Fiscal Impact of Immigration in the UK - Oxford University.

FT reporting research by UCL , same research reported by The Economist

The most credible (and that's a stretch) source I can see that says immigrants cost more than they bring in is MigrationWatch UK, and if you want talk about them, read this.

But Migration Watch doesn't produce academic research. It produces whatever logical contortion is required to turn facts about immigrants into a weapon to beat them with. They'll say anything, or ignore anything, in order to turn the UK's political debate against migrants.

Some more excellent criticism of MigrationWatch in The New Statesman
Also see here, namely on background and credentials of the group.

Would you care to produce some research that supports your view Rinoa?

Rusty_Shackleton

mrginge wrote: »

Come on rusty, so well read and educated yet you can't even grasp the difference between made up assumptions based on no evidence and questioning someone based on their own comments.

No... I meant several times I've asked you to stop making assumptions and twisting my words. I also asked you to back up your claims and you offered no sources or explanations of your views.

Your criticism may well have been valid of the post you were responding to, but it was rather hypocritical from my point of view.

GreatApe

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

Greatape, I think the problem is in our respective approaches, highlighted by your comment: "You would also vote against the government that said you could not help your child and you must help lots of others instead because they are more deserving of your help. Hence you (or most people) would vote against more IHTs" - at no point is anyone seriously voting in a GE to 'save their child' in a direct way... all you can do is vote for whoever you think will foster the best society for them to inherit.

I could be incredibly wealthy, but that doesnt guarantee much security for my child in the future, plenty could go wrong. Whereas strong social security and public services has better chance of guaranteeing at least the important stuff is taken care of. I'm much more keen on hedging my bets regardless of who I am and where i think my life will go. Please don't confuse this with "expecting others to care for me" in the way so often thrown against socialists... I save considerable amounts of money so I wouldn't need to rely on JSA. My savings are plan A if I lose my job, and JSA plan B if it comes to it.

Anyway, as much as I really want to respond to your last post in full, I think others above have a point that this has gone far off topic. thanks for an interesting and lively debate.

but we already have a social state with a government that is responsible for some £750 billion or so of the economy. Probably the first one or two hundred billion cover all the niceties and safeguards you talk about. So why should taxes be even higher?

GreatApe

Rinoa wrote: »

You're not going to find the data because it isn't there.

True, some will contribute by paying taxes, but unskilled migrants on minimum wage don't pay taxes, they receive health care and schooling for their kids (around £3k p.a per pupil) and enjoy a free house (average price £200,000?) just for being here.

Easy to see what attracts them, I'd do the same if I were them. But economically it's a very bad deal for UK plc.

If it was a bad deal, let alone let a very bad deal why is it that it is not clear cut to many more people?

Rinoa

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

Well it was pretty easy to find some sources to prove you wrong:

Also from from Full Fact

EU immigrants pay £1.34 in taxes for every £1 they receive in state assistance

Conclusion:
This is a difficult thing to measure, and other research has different findings.

House of Lords 2008

Record levels of immigration have had "little or no impact" on the economic well-being of Britons, an influential House of Lords committee has said.
It says competition from immigrants has had a negative impact on the low paid and training for young UK workers, and has contributed to high house prices.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7322825.stm

Rusty_Shackleton

GreatApe wrote: »

but we already have a social state with a government that is responsible for some £750 billion or so of the economy. Probably the first one or two hundred billion cover all the niceties and safeguards you talk about. So why should taxes be even higher?

Because I don't agree that public services are adequate relative to the wealth of this country. I think a lot of northern European countries are far more progressive and serve their citizens better in numerous ways - they all spend a higher proportion of GDP than the UK. The proportion of GDP spent by the government is largely irrelevant (and if you buy into the governments arguments about the deficit, this isn't a problem if covered by sufficient tax receipts)

If you agree with the tories about having a small state for ideological reasons, say so, but I think your earlier comments about the reasons for poverty in this country were pretty shameful, I really hope it's through genuine ignorance. There is real poverty and real suffering in this country, and there's plenty we, as a society, could choose to do about it.

Rinoa

GreatApe wrote: »

If it was a bad deal, let alone let a very bad deal why is it that it is not clear cut to many more people?

Not sure. Maybe their maths isn't up to scratch

If migrants pay their way fine, but I don't see why they should be subsidised. Although I acknowledge the way our benefits system works doesn't help.

Rusty_Shackleton

Rinoa wrote: »

Also from from Full Fact
House of Lords 2008

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7322825.stm

yes, I'm aware of what that Full Fact link says because I read it before I posted it to you! If you read further down and then delve into the Oxford research (which discusses other related research) that's where the part about Migration Watch comes in... because they spew out an awful lot of press releases dressed up as research. I also provided you with several sources that debunk their claims, and even a link detailing their background, which shows why their claim of being an 'unbiased think thank' is utter b**locks.

I've not read the HoL committee report the BBC link references (and don't intend to given the length of it), so that's fair enough as a point to your side :P
If the full thing is of interest to anyone it can be found here.

economic

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

Because I don't agree that public services are adequate relative to the wealth of this country. I think a lot of northern European countries are far more progressive and serve their citizens better in numerous ways - they all spend a higher proportion of GDP than the UK. The proportion of GDP spent by the government is largely irrelevant (and if you buy into the governments arguments about the deficit, this isn't a problem if covered by sufficient tax receipts)

If you agree with the tories about having a small state for ideological reasons, say so, but I think your earlier comments about the reasons for poverty in this country were pretty shameful, I really hope it's through genuine ignorance. There is real poverty and real suffering in this country, and there's plenty we, as a society, could choose to do about it.

when i was working i was in the 40% tax bracket. i certainly dont want to pay more then that. in fact one of the reasons for me not working is that i paid too much tax to make it worthwhile.

yes there are poor people but thats just part of life. i certainly dont want to have to pay for them to sacrifice my quality of life.

qwert_yuiop

Hooray - more free money from Europe, "to mitigate the problems caused by Brexit" - but only if you're in Northern Ireland.

Come on over - the climate's not the greatest, but otherwise it's all right. You might like it.