Why Britain's debt is on a dangerous trajectory

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Tee_Maynott wrote: »

The 2016 research by The Institute For Public Policy Research very clearly showed and said that EU migrants were more likely than the general workforce to claim in-work benefits.

That has been addressed in the post where I noted that EU migrants pay in £15 BILLION a year more, just from income tax and NI payments, than they take out in tax credits and child benefit.

And of course they also pay in Billions more in VAT so the net benefit is even larger in reality.

The IPPR paper you reference also contains multiple references to EU migrants being a net fiscal benefit to the UK and costing the state less than the native born do. .

Gwendo40

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Excellent news then for us.

As we're getting highly intelligent, skilled and motivated additions to our labour force.

:beer:

.... who are working in minimum wage jobs and claiming tax credits, housing benefit etc etc

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Gwendo40 wrote: »

.... who are working in minimum wage jobs and claiming tax credits, housing benefit etc etc

And yet they still on average pay in Billions a year more in tax than they take out in benefits.

EU migrants subsidise the native born.

Excellent deal for the UK. :beer:

Herzlos

Even assuming (incorrectly) that all migrants get tax credits, housing benefit, work cash in hand and send all the money home. They still need to buy stuff whilst over here (or are the importing their food, electricity, homes, clothes, vehicles, too?), and that money goes into the economy, with the VAT going to the government. It reduces the per-person overhead of things like public transport, is more likely to keep post offices open and so on. They still pay council tax, insurance (and tax), fuel (and tax), utilities (and tax).
They tend to be working age, thus already educated and in better health than our pensioners, thus cost our health service less.


And those are just the ones the Daily Mail is telling you exist (like the propaganda piece I saw yesterday about assylum seekers getting £350/week, free car, luxury housing whilst British pensioners get £70/week), which doesn't hold up to any scrutiny, and even if it did, we already have (and don't use) the powers to send those ones back to the country of origin.


Any on tax credits are because they aren't being paid enough to avoid them.


More people paying into the pot either makes the pot bigger, or makes the contributions to maintain the pot smaller.

lisyloo

They can be very frugal with accommodation.
If they are working in a city they may well not have vehicles or might be bused in by their employer.
They might have food and accommodation provided by a hotel or fishing boat or might be using a caravan on a fruit farm.
They might not buy clothes and mange with what they have,
This is what I did for 4 years at uni in the late 80s when loans were rare and so was credit, if my tights or socks had a hole I sewed it up.

They will be cosuming local food, but could also be living frugally.

For balance there are also higher paid migrants so let’s not forget the high paid hospital consultants and mid paid IT workers. Migrants exist at all pay levels.

Herzlos

My point is that it's virtually impossible that any significant number of migrants manage to contribute nothing at all to the economy. The bogeyman migrant may not contribute much, but they are the vast, vast minority.

lisyloo wrote: »

Migrants exist at all pay levels.

Exactly. And most pay levels pay tax.

lisyloo

Herzlos wrote: »

My point is that it's virtually impossible that any significant number of migrants manage to contribute nothing at all to the economy. The bogeyman migrant may not contribute much, but they are the vast, vast minority.






Exactly. And most pay levels pay tax.

The vast majority will contribute but will also take.
Traditionally 60% of the population are NET takers.


Personally I don’t have an issue with the rich subsidising the poor. I can’t see how it can work any other way if we want a welfare state and if we don’t have enough nurses or fruit pickers then we have to import them.

No axe to grind from me but pretty sure the majority are NET takers.

ruperts

buglawton wrote: »

To quote from your own earlier postOriginally Posted by HAMISH_MCTAVISH
"But the higher migration scenario, which is actually not high at all but rather what we have been used to in recent times at around 250K per year, shows we could radically reduce the national debt to just 40% of GDP over the same timeframe."

Are we supposed to believe that adding a million imported people to the population every 4 years would take us on the road to zero national debt and that's a good idea?

If so, all I can say is, how about we earn our way out of it instead, like other countries are expected to?

When you say "earn our way out of it", what exactly do you mean? Since we are talking about government debt, and the government 'earns' money through tax, do you mean tax increases? Or are you saying we should all work more hours so that we pay more tax that way? Maybe a less cowardly government than the current lot could raise tax on big business?

antrobus

ruperts wrote: »

,,,Maybe a less cowardly government than the current lot could raise tax on big business?

Where do you think big business get their money from?

Why don't you want to raise tax on small business? They're less likely to s0d off to Ireland or wherever, so the take should be better.

Herzlos

lisyloo wrote: »

The vast majority will contribute but will also take.
Traditionally 60% of the population are NET takers.


Personally I don’t have an issue with the rich subsidising the poor. I can’t see how it can work any other way if we want a welfare state and if we don’t have enough nurses or fruit pickers then we have to import them.

No axe to grind from me but pretty sure the majority are NET takers.

Do you have a citation for that? 60% seems pretty high.