Recent immigrants to UK 'make net contribution'

[Peoplesoft bloke]

An open door policy was only ever going to exasperate the situation, it's only the comfortably off who seem to think it's a good idea.

Exasperate - hilarious!

[alluvial]

And lower profits for the companies therefore a lower tax take on corporation tax?

Why should it? Companies will maintain their profits by passing on the cost to the consumer so corporation tax is maintained, higher levels of vat are collected, inflation remains at a sensible level that allows pay to rise with corresponding rises in income tax and NI. The indigenous population then have more money in their pockets allowing them to spend more on non-essential products, money retained in the economy is spent in this country that leads to the companies selling more of their products that leads to increased profits for them.
Of course I could be talking out of my arse but it really is never as simple as your statement makes it sound.

[vetran]

From the wail

How migrants from outside Europe leave a £100billion hole in the public purse: Amount taken in benefits and services is 14% higher than money put back | Mail Online

UCL’s report said the population of migrants from outside Europe grew by more than 2.2million between 1995 and 2011, reaching just under 6.15million in 2011.

It said that over the same period, the non-EEA immigrants received public services and benefits worth £104 billion more, at 2011 prices, than they paid in taxes.

Their contributions, the report said, paid just over 86 per cent of the value of the services and benefits they received.

Over the same period, the EEA migrant population went up from under two million to 2.85million in 2011. But they contributed £8.8billion more to the Treasury than they received in services and benefits, meaning they paid 4 per cent more than they took.

According to the data, migrants are 20 per cent more likely to be claiming work tax credit than Britons. One in seven people claiming the benefit is a non-UK national.

Professor Dustmann and his colleagues said: ‘Immigrants arriving since the early 2000s have made substantial net contributions to public finances, a reality that contrasts starkly with the view often maintained in public debate.’

However their report said recent immigrants are likely to be of working age and so make fewer demands on schools or the NHS.

But Sir Andrew Green of the MigrationWatch UK think tank said: ‘It is very interesting that this report finds that non-EU migrants since 1995 have made a negative contribution to the national budget, yet they have accounted for two thirds of foreign immigration over the past 15 years.

‘As regards EU migrants, much of the benefit stems from their relative youth but, like the rest of us, they will get older. No allowance has been made in these calculations for future pensions or for higher health costs in old age.’

no mention of displacement costs. I'm assuming as well as benefit they counted the cost of Government etc?

Completely different report.

[gingerjedi]

And lower profits for the companies therefore a lower tax take on corporation tax?

Like the companies who've recently been in the news, the ones who offer low paid jobs and pay the 'required rate of UK tax'*?

*Nothing, thanks to creative accounting ...though I don't want to go there.

[SueEllen]

So you were wrong, I pointed that out and are now trying to disguise your backtracking by listing some stuff you just read on the web.

Not read it on the web - I know people who actually deal with that tulip.

[SueEllen]

Live and let live

No you can't be sensible.

[vetran]

Thought I had seen that name before.

BBC News - Prof says his '13,000 EU migrants' report 'misinterpreted'

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".

But Prof Christian Dustmann believes none can have read his 2003 report.

He said it made clear immigration would be much higher if, as happened, Germany and other countries decided to curb access to their labour markets.

[Mich the Tester]

No you can't be sensible.

WSS

[Mich the Tester]

BBC News - Prof says his '13,000 EU migrants' report 'misinterpreted'

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

But Prof Christian Dustmann believes none can have read his 2003 report.

Would it be entirely unreasonable to give Professor Dustmann the benefit of the doubt on this one?

[vetran]

Would it be entirely unreasonable to give Professor Dustmann the benefit of the doubt on this one?

I just pointed out he has had previous exposure.

But professor Dustmann believes they have compounded the error on Germany by counting only the number of people arriving in the UK from the 2004 accession countries, and ignoring those who subsequently returned home.

He also notes that his predictions were supposed to be an average for 10 years from 2004, so it was too early to draw conclusions, as Lord Howell did, in 2006.

The professor concludes: "We are pretty proud of that report, it is a good piece of careful, very careful, academic work where we point out with great care all the caveats of doing any predictions under the circumstances of not very good and incomplete data.

"And we say over and over again that one has to take extreme caution in interpreting the numbers."

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.a...igrants-and-uk