Immigrants have cost the tax payer over £140 billion since 1995

Migration Watch UK today issued a new assessment of the cost of immigration to the tax payer. The outcome is that immigrants cost the taxpayer over £140 billion or more than £22 million a day over the 17 years 1995 – 2011.

The Migration Watch study followed the methodology of a recent paper from the Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration (CReAM) but queried some very unrealistic assumptions. Even on their own assumptions, CReAM had calculated that the overall effect of immigration since 1995 has been a net cost of £95 billion. This result was contained in a table annexed to their paper but it was not even mentioned in the text of the report, still less in the summary or the press release – a truly astonishing omission.

CReAM also claimed a net benefit of £25 billion from recent migrants which they described as “a very sizeable fiscal contribution”. However, analysis by Migration Watch finds that the true figure is more likely to be a net cost of that amount.....

http://news.migrationwatch.org.uk/2014/03/immigrants-have-cost-the-tax-payer-over-140-billion-since-1995.html

surely the influx of skilled workers have compensated for that amount, we have a carwash on practically every corner now...

[size=32]Immigrants DON'T Cost UK Taxpayers More Than £22m A Day, Despite What Migration Watch Say[/size]


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/03/13/immigrants-cost-uk_n_4954341.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

I think everybody already knew this.

BigAndy9 wrote:I think everybody already knew this.

That Migrant Watch skewed the figures, yep I knew that.

PhilDidge wrote:[size=32]Immigrants DON'T Cost UK Taxpayers More Than £22m A Day, Despite What Migration Watch Say[/size]


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/03/13/immigrants-cost-uk_n_4954341.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

Says the Huffington Post. How about some proper details?

Migration Watch Paper on the Fiscal Effects of Immigration to the UK and the Response from CReAM

1. CReAM has responded to our paper by misrepresenting the points we made without answering them[1]. Perhaps this was a ploy to distract attention from the weaknesses we have identified but it is not what we should expect from an academic institution.

2. The Migration Watch analysis is anything but the “violent attack” claimed. On the contrary, It is a careful assessment, prompted initially by the absence of any mention in the abstract of their paper of their finding of a fiscal cost of migration of £95 billion between 1995 and 2011, and the incongruence between this finding and their conclusion “Overall, our findings draw a positive picture of immigrant contribution”. This important finding was obscured in CReAM’s report of their research both in their paper and in their media presentation of it.....

http://news.migrationwatch.org.uk/2014/03/migration-watch-paper-on-the-fiscal-effects-of-immigration-to-the-uk-and-the-response-from-cream.html

Tess. wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:[size=31.81818199157715]Immigrants DON'T Cost UK Taxpayers More Than £22m A Day, Despite What Migration Watch Say[/size]


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/03/13/immigrants-cost-uk_n_4954341.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

Says the Huffington Post.  How about some proper details?

Migration Watch Paper on the Fiscal Effects of Immigration to the UK and the Response from CReAM

1. CReAM has responded to our paper by misrepresenting the points we made without answering them[1]. Perhaps this was a ploy to distract attention from the weaknesses we have identified but it is not what we should expect from an academic institution.

2. The Migration Watch analysis is anything but the “violent attack” claimed. On the contrary, It is a careful assessment, prompted initially by the absence of any mention in the abstract of their paper of their finding of a fiscal cost of migration of  £95 billion between 1995 and 2011, and the incongruence between this finding and their conclusion “Overall, our findings draw a positive picture of immigrant contribution”. This  important finding was obscured in CReAM’s report of their research both in their paper and in their media presentation of it.....

http://news.migrationwatch.org.uk/2014/03/migration-watch-paper-on-the-fiscal-effects-of-immigration-to-the-uk-and-the-response-from-cream.html

I think herr dick..tator wants information he agrees with not actual facts...  

Tess. wrote:Migration Watch UK today issued a new assessment of the cost of immigration to the tax payer. The outcome is that immigrants cost the taxpayer over £140 billion or more than £22 million a day over the 17 years 1995 – 2011.

The Migration Watch study followed the methodology of a recent paper from the Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration (CReAM) but queried some very unrealistic assumptions. Even on their own assumptions, CReAM had calculated that the overall effect of immigration since 1995 has been a net cost of £95 billion. This result was contained in a table annexed to their paper but it was not even mentioned in the text of the report, still less in the summary or the press release – a truly astonishing omission.

CReAM also claimed a net benefit of £25 billion from recent migrants which they described as “a very sizeable fiscal contribution”. However, analysis by Migration Watch finds that the true figure is more likely to be a net cost of that amount.....

http://news.migrationwatch.org.uk/2014/03/immigrants-have-cost-the-tax-payer-over-140-billion-since-1995.html

..but  do we have a figure of how much immigrants, both professional and non professional immigrants put into the British economy each year Tess?

Joy Division wrote:

Tess. wrote:Migration Watch UK today issued a new assessment of the cost of immigration to the tax payer. The outcome is that immigrants cost the taxpayer over £140 billion or more than £22 million a day over the 17 years 1995 – 2011.

The Migration Watch study followed the methodology of a recent paper from the Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration (CReAM) but queried some very unrealistic assumptions. Even on their own assumptions, CReAM had calculated that the overall effect of immigration since 1995 has been a net cost of £95 billion. This result was contained in a table annexed to their paper but it was not even mentioned in the text of the report, still less in the summary or the press release – a truly astonishing omission.

CReAM also claimed a net benefit of £25 billion from recent migrants which they described as “a very sizeable fiscal contribution”. However, analysis by Migration Watch finds that the true figure is more likely to be a net cost of that amount.....

http://news.migrationwatch.org.uk/2014/03/immigrants-have-cost-the-tax-payer-over-140-billion-since-1995.html

..but  do we have a figure of how much immigrants, both professional and non professional immigrants put into the British economy each year Tess?

we did have a thread on the polish woman who sold the big issue and can now claim working tax credits for her 3 children on the strength of it...  

Tess. wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:[size=32]Immigrants DON'T Cost UK Taxpayers More Than £22m A Day, Despite What Migration Watch Say[/size]


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/03/13/immigrants-cost-uk_n_4954341.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

Says the Huffington Post.  How about some proper details?

Migration Watch Paper on the Fiscal Effects of Immigration to the UK and the Response from CReAM

1. CReAM has responded to our paper by misrepresenting the points we made without answering them[1]. Perhaps this was a ploy to distract attention from the weaknesses we have identified but it is not what we should expect from an academic institution.

2. The Migration Watch analysis is anything but the “violent attack” claimed. On the contrary, It is a careful assessment, prompted initially by the absence of any mention in the abstract of their paper of their finding of a fiscal cost of migration of  £95 billion between 1995 and 2011, and the incongruence between this finding and their conclusion “Overall, our findings draw a positive picture of immigrant contribution”. This  important finding was obscured in CReAM’s report of their research both in their paper and in their media presentation of it.....

http://news.migrationwatch.org.uk/2014/03/migration-watch-paper-on-the-fiscal-effects-of-immigration-to-the-uk-and-the-response-from-cream.html

Yes Tess, migrantwatch have made up their own methodology and so take with a pinch of salt what they say and will wait till fullfacts show their figures to be crap as I know they are, 

Migrantwatch are anti immigrant so it is no suprise they will skew the figures to make up gobbledygook

Tess. wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:[size=32]Immigrants DON'T Cost UK Taxpayers More Than £22m A Day, Despite What Migration Watch Say[/size]


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/03/13/immigrants-cost-uk_n_4954341.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

Says the Huffington Post.  How about some proper details?

Migration Watch Paper on the Fiscal Effects of Immigration to the UK and the Response from CReAM

1. CReAM has responded to our paper by misrepresenting the points we made without answering them[1]. Perhaps this was a ploy to distract attention from the weaknesses we have identified but it is not what we should expect from an academic institution.

2. The Migration Watch analysis is anything but the “violent attack” claimed. On the contrary, It is a careful assessment, prompted initially by the absence of any mention in the abstract of their paper of their finding of a fiscal cost of migration of  £95 billion between 1995 and 2011, and the incongruence between this finding and their conclusion “Overall, our findings draw a positive picture of immigrant contribution”. This  important finding was obscured in CReAM’s report of their research both in their paper and in their media presentation of it.....

http://news.migrationwatch.org.uk/2014/03/migration-watch-paper-on-the-fiscal-effects-of-immigration-to-the-uk-and-the-response-from-cream.html

Not the Huffington Post.

The Rebuttal....

Reply to the Report ‘An Assessment of the Fiscal Effects of Immigration to the UK’ by Migration Watch

The real facts

http://www.cream-migration.org/commentsarticle.php?blog=8

Excellent Irn, just as I suspected.

so it remains as ever about proof we decide to believe...  

Not really, all you have to do is study the details, as seen the fact is Migrantwatch tried badly to skew the numbers to make fit their own agenda which was easily shown by the link from Irn

Brilliant indeed Irn, Tess must have got muddled up.

Just as I though too, immigrants have paid in more than they have received in state expenditures and it's some Brits who have taken more than they have contributed.



In this report MW claims that our research paper on ‘The Fiscal Effects of Immigration to the UK’ [http://www.cream-migration.org/publ_uploads/CDP_22_13.pdf], released on November 5 2013, has some flaws that invalidate our main results, namely that EEA immigrants who came to the UK since 2000 have contributed over the last 11 substantially more in revenues than they received in state expenditures. This contrasts with the UK-born, who over the same period contributed substantially less than they received.

I would think that the academic group that actually carried out the research are in a far better position to analyse and present their data in a fair and balanced way based on their research rather than a group with an agenda nit-picking through it to try and present the data in exactly the opposite way.

It is pretty much down to who you believe or what you see in the real world.

What people see and experience will make their mind up - if you live in one of the big cities and you see those two articles - one you will agree with, the other will just make you even more angry.

If you're slightly limp-wristed and live where there aren't many immigrants you'll think "oh, see, those city folk are just making it all up".

How do people experience if Migrants have made a loss or increase to the economy?

That is nonsense

BigAndy9 wrote:It is pretty much down to who you believe or what you see in the real world.

What people see and experience will make their mind up - if you live in one of the big cities and you see those two articles - one you will agree with, the other will just make you even more angry.

If you're slightly limp-wristed and live where there aren't many immigrants you'll think "oh, see, those city folk are just making it all up".

I agree and started a thread about it once in ADO, it went wrong of course as people assumed it was a wind up but it is very interesting to think we decide what to believe and what is credible evidence..

BigAndy9 wrote:It is pretty much down to who you believe or what you see in the real world.

What people see and experience will make their mind up - if you live in one of the big cities and you see those two articles - one you will agree with, the other will just make you even more angry.

If you're slightly limp-wristed and live where there aren't many immigrants you'll think "oh, see, those city folk are just making it all up".

So it's back to your research methods of touring housing estates and reading posters on lamposts again , Andy?

Tut tut

Irn Bru wrote:I would think that the academic group that actually carried out the research are in a far better position to analyse and present their data in a fair and balanced way based on their research rather than a group with an agenda nit-picking through it to try and present the data in exactly the opposite way.

I totally agree Irn, and I think it's dishonourable and cheap for those who 'misinterpret' regularly to suit themselves political wise.

Irn Bru wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:It is pretty much down to who you believe or what you see in the real world.

What people see and experience will make their mind up - if you live in one of the big cities and you see those two articles - one you will agree with, the other will just make you even more angry.

If you're slightly limp-wristed and live where there aren't many immigrants you'll think "oh, see, those city folk are just making it all up".

So it's back to your research methods of touring housing estates and reading posters on lamposts again , Andy?

Tut tut

As a matter of fact I did once see some posters telling me that immigrants were dirty scum who cost us loads of money, whilst out at night with the local Padre handing out warm clothing on one of those estates.

The research was done by a Mr E.D.Lincoln, whomever he is...

Irn Bru wrote:

Tess. wrote:

Says the Huffington Post.  How about some proper details?

Migration Watch Paper on the Fiscal Effects of Immigration to the UK and the Response from CReAM

1. CReAM has responded to our paper by misrepresenting the points we made without answering them[1]. Perhaps this was a ploy to distract attention from the weaknesses we have identified but it is not what we should expect from an academic institution.

2. The Migration Watch analysis is anything but the “violent attack” claimed. On the contrary, It is a careful assessment, prompted initially by the absence of any mention in the abstract of their paper of their finding of a fiscal cost of migration of  £95 billion between 1995 and 2011, and the incongruence between this finding and their conclusion “Overall, our findings draw a positive picture of immigrant contribution”. This  important finding was obscured in CReAM’s report of their research both in their paper and in their media presentation of it.....

http://news.migrationwatch.org.uk/2014/03/migration-watch-paper-on-the-fiscal-effects-of-immigration-to-the-uk-and-the-response-from-cream.html

Not the Huffington Post.

The Rebuttal....

Reply to the Report ‘An Assessment of the Fiscal Effects of Immigration to the UK’ by Migration Watch

The real facts

http://www.cream-migration.org/commentsarticle.php?blog=8

Not the real facts - cream's version of them. I've already posted Migrationwatch's reply in detail to the cream article. But no-one bothers to read posts properly here, except if they tow the Party line.

 

SUCH a pity that Tess_the_dog, heavenly_god_botherer, his idiot whoring wife "VOD/MCL", and their proud guardian B'Andy, can never get their puerile "bash the immigrants" act together sufficiently, so as to actuallly prove their faux stat's with some real-world facts and figures...

JUST to reinforce their envious positions as the "noisiest and empiest vessels" on this forum..

AND sharing less than half a brain among their whole slimy little gang.   

Lone Wolf wrote: 

SUCH a pity that Tess_the_dog, heavenly_god_botherer, his idiot whoring wife "VOD/MCL", and their proud guardian B'Andy, can never get their puerile "bash the immigrants" act together sufficiently, so as to actuallly prove their faux stat's with some real-world facts and figures...

JUST to reinforce their envious positions as the "noisiest and empiest vessels" on this forum..

AND sharing less than half a brain among their whole slimy little gang.   

do you mind not posting about my wife and myself I find your constant abuse unnecessary and upsetting..

Lone Wolf wrote: 

SUCH a pity that Tess_the_dog, heavenly_god_botherer, his idiot whoring wife "VOD/MCL", and their proud guardian B'Andy, can never get their puerile "bash the immigrants" act together sufficiently, so as to actuallly prove their faux stat's with some real-world facts and figures...

JUST to reinforce their envious positions as the "noisiest and empiest vessels" on this forum..

AND sharing less than half a brain among their whole slimy little gang.   

..such a way with words Bee   

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:
It is pretty much down to who you believe or what you see in the real world.

What people see and experience will make their mind up - if you live in one of the big cities and you see those two articles - one you will agree with, the other will just make you even more angry................

I agree and started a thread about it once in ADO, it went wrong of course as people assumed it w.....

 
::D:: 

WHAT do you get when you put this slimy little gang of dimwitted dropouts in a forum together ???

A lie-filled racist-fascist thread like this, of course..

THOSE half a dozen-or-so white-supremacist R/W-extremist nongs have to be the biggest gang of losers !  

Lone Wolf wrote: 

SUCH a pity that Tess_the_dog, heavenly_god_botherer, his idiot whoring wife "VOD/MCL", and their proud guardian B'Andy, can never get their puerile "bash the immigrants" act together sufficiently, so as to actuallly prove their faux stat's with some real-world facts and figures...

JUST to reinforce their envious positions as the "noisiest and empiest vessels" on this forum..

AND sharing less than half a brain among their whole slimy little gang.   

Yet again Lone Braincell doesn't debate any points, just posts personal abuse. Qu'elle surprise.

Well what do you expect England has always been crap at immigration, I mean you fools stayed there and sent your Convicts to paradise

          

veya_victaous wrote:Well what do you expect England has always been crap at immigration, I mean you fools stayed there and sent your Convicts to paradise

          

Even the Romans left.

In those sexy togas as well   

What did the British cost the Native Americans?

Tess. wrote:

Lone Wolf wrote: 

SUCH a pity that Tess_the_dog, heavenly_god_botherer, his idiot whoring wife "VOD/MCL", and their proud guardian B'Andy, can never get their puerile "bash the immigrants" act together sufficiently, so as to actuallly prove their faux stat's with some real-world facts and figures...

JUST to reinforce their envious positions as the "noisiest and empiest vessels" on this forum..

AND sharing less than half a brain among their whole slimy little gang.   

Yet again Lone Braincell doesn't debate any points, just posts personal abuse.

 

Idiot...

Silly old cow can only throw my insults back at me ~ haven't yet seen an original thought produced by that brainless and witless dog's arse..

And STILL "she" hasn't produced any real world stat's to back up her bullshit posts !   

veya_victaous wrote:
Well what do you expect England has always been crap at immigration, I mean you fools stayed there and sent your Convicts to paradise

          

 
  WHAT more can one say about a country like England, that exports all of their intelligentsia, Workers and entrepreneurs to the Colonies over the 18th and 19th centuries...

AND keeps the morons and 'white collar' crim's in their parliaments and banks, and the inbreds and sexual perverts in the aristocracy and judiciary, to "run" their little island country..

RUN it into the ground, that is ~ as those "robber baron" families kept on pilfering their national treasury to pad out their famiy fortunes.   

Original Quill wrote:What did the British cost the Native Americans?

What did the Spanish, the French, those born to American soil themselves who are descendants of Europeans, what about the European settlers to Australia etc, none are without fault and again a distortion of the facts how Americans have broken every treaty ever made with the indigenous populations, so you really do not have a leg to stand on with that one as all did wrongs.

veya_victaous wrote:Well what do you expect England has always been crap at immigration, I mean you fools stayed there and sent your Convicts to paradise

          

I do not think Australia is much better, its policy on asylum seekers is appalling to say the least, if people are going to point out wrongs they should at least recognise they have done many thesmselves

Irn Bru wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:Well what do you expect England has always been crap at immigration, I mean you fools stayed there and sent your Convicts to paradise

          

Even the Romans left.

The Romans were invaders and the the Brits actually through Celtic influence treated women far better than the Romans did, in fact many women for the time had equality which was not see again for centuries, the Romans had taken that away to bring about going backwards in forward thinking. The Romans in fact ran away from Britain and not a case of leaving because their Empire was under thread from years of suppressing people, I would think some were happy to see them go.

Lone Wolf wrote:

Tess. wrote:

Yet again Lone Braincell doesn't debate any points, just posts personal abuse.

 

Idiot...

Silly old cow can only throw my insults back at me ~ haven't yet seen an original thought produced by that brainless and witless dog's arse..

And STILL "she" hasn't produced any real world stat's to back up her bullshit posts !     

Well folks, I tried. As for original thought, I've posted threads which I thought could be debated intelligently, including science ones, but all you get is insults, specially from this brain-dead moron, who I don't believe has made a single thread or even a single intelligent reply. It really is a waste of time. I've said so before but came back and persisted. Pointless.

Tess. wrote:

Lone Wolf wrote:
 

Idiot...

Silly old cow can only throw my insults back at me ~ haven't yet seen an original thought produced by that brainless and witless dog's arse..

And STILL "she" hasn't produced any real world stat's to back up her bullshit posts !     

Well folks, I tried.  As for original thought, I've posted threads which I thought could be debated intelligently, including science ones, but all you get is insults, specially from this brain-dead moron, who I don't believe has made a single thread or even a single intelligent reply.  It really is a waste of time.  I've said so before but came back and persisted.  Pointless.

It doesn't matter what you post Tess.

An idiot will always be an idiot.