The R word

kabayiri

ukcarper wrote: »

I read somewhere that you have to be in top 40% to be a net contributor how many migrants are in that category.

It's a complete lie IMO, this migrant economic meme.

We have been able to take in 3-5m more people in the last 15 years or so, because we had some slack in our infrastructure. It wasn't that long ago they were closing/consolidating schools around here, particularly primary.

Now, we are short, and a massive amount of money has to be spent to boost all manner of infrastructure, just to keep pace with more people.

Factor that into the 'net benefit' equation and it falls to pieces.

It'd be cheaper to develop machines to pick our turnips and pack our fish fingers.

Filo25

ukcarper wrote: »

I read somewhere that you have to be in top 40% to be a net contributor how many migrants are in that category.

Presumably enough that the calculations show that EU immigration ends up being a net contributor to govt finances, to be fair it is probably helped by the fact that EU migrants tend to be young and hence not heavy users of NHS services either.

On here most seem to view all EU immigrants as people working car washes or doing other minimum wage jobs, just as for UK citizens though they work in a wide variety of areas.

Where I work I was surprised to hear about 1/3 of our employees would be defined as EU migrants, the vast majority of those would all be in the top 40% of earners. Half of the team I work on consists of migrants and those are all paying 40% tax, so comfortably net contributors.

ukcarper

Filo25 wrote: »

Presumably enough that the calculations show that EU immigration ends up being a net contributor to govt finances, to be fair it is probably helped by the fact that EU migrants tend to be young and hence not heavy users of NHS services either.

On here most seem to view all EU immigrants as people working car washes or doing other minimum wage jobs, just as for UK citizens though they work in a wide variety of areas.

Where I work I was surprised to hear about 1/3 of our employees would be defined as EU migrants, the vast majority of those would all be in the top 40% of earners. Half of the team I work on consists of migrants and those are all paying 40% tax, so comfortably net contributors.

I think the figures are flawed, just to add I'm not against immigration.

kabayiri

Filo25 wrote: »

...
On here most seem to view all EU immigrants as people working car washes or doing other minimum wage jobs, just as for UK citizens though they work in a wide variety of areas.
...

In the years following the GFC some 8 out of 10 jobs created were in the lowest income category.

This also happened to be a period of high inward migration.

Who exactly do you think was taking these low paid jobs?

Some factories even advertised directly back to Poland etc.

I don't know if it's the same where you live, but there are some really cr4ppy businesses up here. They just need cheap workers. Where they come from isn't really here or there, as long as they understand instructions.

itwasntme001

Hence why we have these populist uprisings over the past few years - working class nationals who are seeing their wages cut or worse being jobless due to the immigration.


I am guessing that immigrants are a huge net taker rather then contributor to our economy. We are seeing debt and deficit levels rise. That should be pretty clear evidence. Also in places like London you have many low skilled migrants given council homes in zone 1/2. That is a huge cost to the taxpayer. There is no need for refugees and migrants to be given social housing in zone 1/2,

THE_Terry_Urr

Herzlos wrote: »

I confessed nothing of the sort, I'm afraid. I've stated before that I'm British but if you want to try and marginalize me for being a foreigner or untermensch then feel free. You'd still be wrong though

I don't believe you because I think you're forgetting what has been posted, like https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5872830218#4353
onwards.
So as I see it there are 2 options: You're not being honest, OR you're a funded agitator.

Given that you seem to spend so much time here I know which I suspect to be more likely.
There was no suggestion of your being marginalised for any reason that I could see; you were bought to task for trying to take the moral high ground. Seeing your deception in this post I can understand why your stance should be questioned.

itwasntme001

THE_Terry_Urr wrote: »

I don't believe you because I think you're forgetting what has been posted, like https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5872830218#4353
onwards.
So as I see it there are 2 options: You're not being honest, OR you're a funded agitator.

Given that you seem to spend so much time here I know which I suspect to be more likely.
There was no suggestion of your being marginalised for any reason that I could see; you were bought to task for trying to take the moral high ground. Seeing your deception in this post I can understand why your stance should be questioned.

I have noticed this too, which is why i ignore his posts. His posts are just full of leftist nonsense.

Herzlos

THE_Terry_Urr wrote: »

I don't believe you because I think you're forgetting what has been posted, like https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5872830218#4353
onwards.
So as I see it there are 2 options: You're not being honest, OR you're a funded agitator.

Given that you seem to spend so much time here I know which I suspect to be more likely.
There was no suggestion of your being marginalised for any reason that I could see; you were bought to task for trying to take the moral high ground. Seeing your deception in this post I can understand why your stance should be questioned.

I don't see it I'm afraid. Cogito accusedme of being a foreigner again and I didn't respond to it?

Though this is an internet forum, I could be the pope for all you know (I'm not though; he'd do grammar better than me).

I do spend far too much time on here, but I guess I find brexiteers too fascinating and just can't resist.

Herzlos

Not all migrants are in exploitative minimum wage jobs. Easily 1/3rd of the people at my site are migrants and paying 40+% tax, most have kids though.

ukcarper wrote: »

I read somewhere that you have to be in top 40% to be a net contributor how many migrants are in that category.

I can't see that, though it'd depend on services used. If you're in good health, have no kids and don't use council facilities then you're likely a net contributor if you pay tax. The state wouldn't have even paid for your education.

I'm more inclined to believe the claim that they are net contributors.

I can point to many natives that are net drains.

ukcarper

Herzlos wrote: »

Not all migrants are in exploitative minimum wage jobs. Easily 1/3rd of the people at my site are migrants and paying 40+% tax, most have kids though.


I can't see that, though it'd depend on services used. If you're in good health, have no kids and don't use council facilities then you're likely a net contributor if you pay tax. The state wouldn't have even paid for your education.

I'm more inclined to believe the claim that they are net contributors.

I can point to many natives that are net drains.

Most of us are net contributors in the short term I don't think they paid that much for older posters education per pupil spending was much lower in 1960s and people started school later and left earlier. Yes many immigrants are in good jobs but I've seen no figures to show how many. Also I think a case for some low paid workers who might not be net contributers as they are needed. It's just I think the often quoted migrants and net contributers is flawed and I'd like to see a detailed report showing that.