Report: The Fiscal Effects of Immigration to the UK

The Fiscal Effects of Immigration to the UK

Christian Dustmann and Tommaso Frattini November 2013

Abstract:
In this paper, we investigate the fiscal impact of immigration on the UK economy, with a focus on the period since 1995. We provide estimates for the overall immigrant population for the period between 1995 and 2012, and for more recent immigrants who arrived since 2000, distinguishing between immigrants from European versus non-European countries. Overall, our findings indicate that EEA immigrants have made a positive fiscal contribution, even during periods when the UK was running budget deficits. This positive contribution is particularly noticeable for more recent immigrants that arrived since 2000 in particular from EEA countries.

http://www.cream-migration.org/publ_uploads/CDP_22_13.pdf

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11209234/Immigration-from-outside-Europe-cost-120-billion.html

Experts from University College London also said native Britons made a negative contribution of £591 billion over the 17 years

The maths of this 'report' don't add up.



It doesn't take into consideration of associated costs of UK citizens who missed out on jobs to foreigners and had to claim benefits instead or the costs of immigrant children at schools which is about £6000 per child school place, or other associated costs to NHS or councils etc.....

Most were on benefits, costing the UK far more, where again, companies had to as already seen look abroad to fill jobs that British people would not take. So it very much has factored in how much British people were costing far more than they were putting in.

The 'report' is deliberately selective in it's analysis, designed to produce a pre determined set of (bogus) findings.

Really, is that what you read on migrant watch where they were unable to refute it and instead makes poor claims like you are doing now?

Haven't read migrant watch.


But as I already said, doesn't take into account other costs to country like children school places, NHS and other council services.



Or the cost of benefits to our unemployed youth who have missed out on jobs and where the rate of youth unemployment has doubled since 2004.

Tommy Monk wrote:The maths of this 'report' don't add up.



It doesn't take into consideration of associated costs of UK citizens who missed out on jobs to foreigners and had to claim benefits instead or the costs of immigrant children at schools which is about £6000 per child school place, or other associated costs to NHS or councils etc.....

"They took are jobs!" is a myth.

As an employer, I can assure you that the jobs are there for the local's taking. The problem is, they don't take it. So we have to look to the EU and else where.

And frankly, they have a much better attitude and work ethic. They don't come here to doss or get drunk the night before work.

Tommy Monk wrote:Haven't read migrant watch.


But as I already said, doesn't take into account other costs to country like children school places, NHS and other council services.



Or the cost of benefits to our unemployed youth who have missed out on jobs and where the rate of youth unemployment has doubled since 2004.

But many of these migrant workers make up the workforce of the NHS and other sectors.

Tommy Monk wrote:Haven't read migrant watch.


But as I already said, doesn't take into account other costs to country like children school places, NHS and other council services.



Or the cost of benefits to our unemployed youth who have missed out on jobs and where the rate of youth unemployment has doubled since 2004.

Which shows you have not read the report.

Hmmm...this post could go on a bit, I dont suppose anyone will actually bother to read it thoroughly, or attempt to understand whats writ, and I can guarantee that at least one person here will answer anything EXCEPT what was writ.....
Neither left or right are going to like it particularly, and I dont give a tarts chuff .

Firstly both L/W And the R/W (as exemplified by the "tories" ) are liars and manipulators of figures par excellence.

and they both love the "untruth"

Let me redefine for you what I mean by "untruth"

Its NOT a lie (we have a word for that ...its called a lie)

You all know what the undead are....apparantly dead, certainly, but far to lively to be, as it were, really dead

well an untruth is well, apparantly true certainly, but far to "twisted" as to be "really true"

So here are some facts for you

25% of your taxes goes on the benefit bill
implied and aimed for untruth reads 25% of your wages supports idle sick lame and lazy brigade

reality is

of your tax 25% goes to the DWP

of that 25%

3% is non working benefits (i.e to the tories myth of the country bankrupting sick lame and lazy)
10% is pensions
AND THE OTHER 12% IS WORKING BENEFITS
(I have allowed for 20% non working adults in calculating some benefits ...like council tax rebates and rent allowences.....)


So the reality ( deliberately hidden by presenting far too coarse figures, designed to promulgate hatered against the poorest in society) Is that a measly 3% of your tax pays the sick lame and lazy....

Now to be included alongside that 12% of WORKING benefits...is of course taxcredits THESE are NOT from the DWP, but from HMRC and comprise 4.6% of the total bill so a total of nearly 17% of your tax bill is paid as WORKING benefits as opposed to 3% spent on "non working benefits"

about time the right bowed its head in shame and begged forgivness of the unfortunate (especially when you consider that the "fiddlers" constitute a VERY small proportion of benefit claimants in reality)
and its about time the left bowed its head in shame for not shouting these figures from the rooftops....

Lets just look at these "working benefits"

why are they there...the simple answer is that the minimum wage is TOO LOW by a long shot, indeed to a certain degree wage levels somewhat ABOVE minimum wage is too low.

Effectively what the govt is doing is subsidising greedy corporate profit machines to the tune of 110 BILLION pounds a year, by paying out this money, which if wages were at a decent level, would NOT need to be taken from the taxpayer...

what has all this to do with the OP

well its simple, greed....

these various eastern european migrants are often paid less than minimum wage (there are a number of devious loopholes that the unscrupuous can use)
they are generally working in poorer conditions that others
they often do not get proper holiday entitlement
they often do not get any pension schemes etc

in other words they are exploited for what they are CHEAP labour...
in other words slaves to make the fat cats fatter still

they SHOULD be sent home and employers here MADE to pay a LIVING wage...then perhaps our kids might want to work...if it pays

and THEN we could shave 110 billion off public expenditure

and there is NO getting away from the fact that it is merely corporate greed that is driving all this...

the difference between top wages and bottom wages has enlarged obscenely

the ratio between profit and wages (except for the top wage earners CEO's and the like) has widened obscenely

greed greed and more greed

the thatcher paradigam

GREED IS GOOD

and fuck them you walk all over to get it.....

Bottom line

fuck you evil lying twisting tories


3% of my tax goes to help the unfortunate...that I can live with
17% of my tax goes to subsidise your fat nasty profiteering morally bankrupt pals...that I find disgusting and immoral

what I find worse is that you twist the facts to make it LOOK the other way round...

Fuck you you left wing cunnus brains (to borrow a phrase) for not having any idea or intent to unravel this disgusting suffocating blanket designed to keep the working man down and turn him against his unemployed brothers....

figures from

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8dY-3hzSftCMng5TFBkaFdSb3M/edit?pli=1

and a little maths.....and no didge I wont accept a charge of "manipulating figures"...because i havnt....and unless you can show evidence of that dont even go there...all I did was change them to reasonably accurate appoximate %ages of the WHOLE tax bill

which also renders any charge of it being "out of date irrelevant...since the degree of change in those %ages relative to one another between 2011/12
and
2013/14 is likely less than the slight distortions introduced by rounding and approximating......

Excellent points about welfare benefits, Vic.

Good post victor.



And Zack....


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1325013/Migrants-took-9-10-jobs-created-Labour.html


http://metro.co.uk/2013/07/27/800000-british-jobs-advertised-to-foreign-workers-in-the-eu-3900683/


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2304298/As-jobs-werent-hard-come-250-000-UK-jobs-advertises-EU-compared-Frances-14-000.html





And this is a very interesting article highlighting many inconvenient truths but this bit is particularly relevant....


'CLAIM: We are banning overseas-only recruitment – legally requiring agencies to advertise in English in the UK.'



Which means that this has been going on already for them to make the claim that it needs action to stop it!!!


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2710158/Exclusive-The-inconvenient-truth-Mr-Cameron-ignored-crackdown-immigrant-benefits-Migrants-handed-5billion-tax-credits.html

3% of my tax goes to help the unfortunate...that I can live with
17% of my tax goes to subsidise your fat nasty profiteering morally bankrupt pals...that I find disgusting and immoral

what I find worse is that you twist the facts to make it LOOK the other way round...

Fuck you you left wing cunnus brains (to borrow a phrase) for not having any idea or intent to unravel this disgusting suffocating blanket designed to keep the working man down and turn him against his unemployed brothers....

That is Excellent post and point.

but to defend the LW, one response News Corp, example here is Julia Gillard reality quite good (even here worst stats are better than Abbott's Average) tried to get through major changes to welfare and disability support as well as education and environment (actually getting those profiting from pollution to pay)
Rupert Murdock is fundamentally opposed to these things and Hammered her every day in the paper drowning out all the positive voices and quite frankly using peoples underlying misogyny to undermine her.
Even when a Better LW leader steps up they are shouted down by the corporate interest and since they also control the majority of the media which the majority of us consume are inevitably defeated by 'unthinking democracy'

yes veya...
BUT
when a L/W govt DOES get elected what do they do.....same old same old...

where is the wholesale repeal of these disguting laws, where is the big change needed to couter this
where are the players in this...

I'll tell you.....in the same bed as the grotty tories, snuggled comfortably up to their "betters"

tories are nasty....L/W are ball-less....

well Julia tried and then was so hammer by the media she was replaced internally with in the party without running for re election.

I think both major parties are a scam and even if a LW leader does get up they are inevitable white-anted by their own party and the corporate controlled media.

I think the biggest problem today with politics is the combination of Lobbyists and professional politicians, we don't have leaders that were professionals in different industries that turn to politics. We have people that spend their lives wheeling and dealing to get into power and inevitably have a lot of favours to pay back when they do get into power... professional politicians tend not to have a vision beyond their own election and getting the titles and benefits that come with it..

Bit like pop music today, people in it for the money and not the passion

and LOL at ball-less my example is a woman

That is the problem, career politicians following a separate agenda to the will of the people they purport to represent.

@TM
well we do agree on that

This is why our house of lords with hereditary peers was better before recent politicians started getting rid of them and installing more of their own selected cronies in there.



The hereditary ones were well paid and already sat on heaps of cash so were not to so influenced by outside forces for financial gain , or held such partisan positions on things, but focused more on doing what was right for the country at large and prevented the career politicians from doing the wrong things.



No wonder the career politicians have been trying to get rid of them for years....

see they have their own set of problems too... (they are the ones that mainly responsible for the fucking of other countries)

I don't think there is a great answer besides the public being aware of the possible conflicts of interest and taking everything they are told with a grain of salt.

the price of freedom is eternal vigilance... applies more to our leaders than anyone else

Man that was a load of inanely boring points by Victor to which it seem his only point that he seems to disagree on this report is based around his assumption that many Eastern Europeans are paid less than the minimum wage which is in fact rare.
The reality is as seen many have far better qualifications than those who are indigenous yet take lesser qualified roles than they would normally.


So your next point is also trying to excuse people working based around the cost of wages, which also falls apart showing where there are already many people who do live and work on such wages and thus your point is not about the affects of EU migrants, because lets face it many are migrants and not immigrants because many only stay for a short time, which of course you do understand the difference? So what you are in fact doing is excusing people when for years many were better off being on benefits than they were to work, that then is the fault of the system in place, where you also fail to understand the cost of wages that is affordable to many medium sized companies that can only run by this method in competitiveness with many other companies, all of which you are ignoring. So you base an excuse for a start for people to not work based off you stating a low wage, which is not an excuse at all, especially when many people world on a lower wage and manage their finances where others are completely irresponsible with their money, all of which you are excusing again. What you failed to do which is even worse is you never even read the report either, because if you did you would see how they came to the parameters of what people have paid.

In fact your arguments are based on as seen an assumption based around your view on taxes, not on what is take for many people as a whole. Should people be paid more, of course, but you re trying to get around the fact there is clearly a poor work ethic with some in this country, where again you have little understanding today corporations, and are just basing what you understand from what you read, which is again susceptible to bias.


So your argument was around greed, great we can reason and see points together on that but nothing you proposed changed any of the points the study was making around immigration and what they placed into the system, you have just decided to come to your own conclusions, which is your choice but is completely based off a poor start point as seen.

So you claim the figures are manipulated, you need to break this down and show this, you need to show what they have gotten wrong, where all your views are based ob very poor assumptions. The facts speak for itself how much immigrants from the EU have paid into the system, and the undeniable fact is they have paid far more in than they have benefited, none of which you have even refuted

Brasidas wrote:Man that was a load of inanely boring points by Victor to which it seem his only point that he seems to disagree on this report is based around his assumption that many Eastern Europeans are paid less than the minimum wage which is in fact rare.


prove it


The reality is as seen many have far better qualifications than those who are indigenous yet take lesser qualified roles than they would normally.

rubbish most are uneducated grunts....


So your next point is also trying to excuse people working based around the cost of wages, which also falls apart showing where there are already many people who do live and work on such wages and thus your point is not about the affects of EU migrants, because lets face it many are migrants and not immigrants because many only stay for a short time, which of course you do understand the difference? So what you are in fact doing is excusing people when for years many were better off being on benefits than they were to work, that then is the fault of the system in place, where you also fail to understand the cost of wages that is affordable to many medium sized companies that can only run by this method in competitiveness with many other companies, all of which you are ignoring.

bull shit.....(depending on your definition of "medium") lets say ANY company that is a "registered company over 500 employees".....is merely a money making machine for the "directors" so they have to pay more...tough they can take less profit then....instead of THEIR wages being 20-30 times the lowest worker in their company they shoiuld be satified with 10X or even less...Maggies "greed is good at work again"

So you base an excuse for a start for people to not work based off you stating a low wage, which is not an excuse at all, especially when many people world on a lower wage and manage their finances where others are completely irresponsible with their money, all of which you are excusing again. What you failed to do which is even worse is you never even read the report either, because if you did you would see how they came to the parameters of what people have paid.

do you EVER read whats writ????

In fact your arguments are based on as seen an assumption based around your view on taxes, not on what is take for many people as a whole. Should people be paid more, of course, but you re trying to get around the fact there is clearly a poor work ethic with some in this country, where again you have little understanding today corporations, and are just basing what you understand from what you read, which is again susceptible to bias.

unfortunately I understand todays corporations very well indeed....and they have the same ethos as victorian ones......


So your argument was around greed, great we can reason and see points together on that but nothing you proposed changed any of the points the study was making around immigration and what they placed into the system, you have just decided to come to your own conclusions, which is your choice but is completely based off a poor start point as seen.

So you claim the figures are manipulated, you need to break this down and show this, you need to show what they have gotten wrong, where all your views are based ob very poor assumptions.

more bull shit....I DID show what they were doing wrong...(i.e. telling people that 25% of their tax was for benefits...WITHOUT further explaining that that 25 % was a coarse figure that includes pensions and WORKING benefits IN OTHERWORDS relying on people NOT understanding the difference between "benefits as a whole " and benefits as applied to non working benefits... in reality 3%)

and NOT based on any poor assumptions...based on ONS figures (YOU of course know better than the ONS or so you think)
Oh and go back and read it again, clearly, as we have seen before your have problems with comprehension.......I DID NOT claim the figures were "manipulated"......I claimed that people were being manipulated by the misleading presentation of figures.



The facts speak for itself how much immigrants from the EU have paid into the system, and the undeniable fact is they have paid far more in than they have benefited, none of which you have even refuted

Again bull shit...figures are being used to manipulate YOU didge.....I didnt think you were that easy, but I suppose since its your tory masters telling you what to think, they could tell you a dogs a mouse and you would believe them.....
again those figures dont tell the WHOLE truth...they tell only a small fraction and are quite selective

you forget most are on minimum wage (or less after the "crafty deductions") and are thus claiming "working benefits" and tax credits so the ONLY thing they pay in is a (very) small amount of NI. THEY WILL NOT be paying tax..........

THEN...

there is as TOMMY points out quite correctly the associated costs which are carefully hidden

the cost of extra staffing/training needed by schools
the cost of "translators" in every council building
the cost of translators in every hospital
the massive associated UPFRONT and un paid for medical provison costs


point....one of these "migrant" (as opposed to immigrant ....just to shut didge up) comes here finds a job and a boy friend, (who also has a job.)
both are on minimum wage so pay bugger all tax and a couple of quid a week in NI
they get tax credits...which by a massive amount outweighs the NI they pay...

so they are a "net cost"

she then gets pregnant and has a child......

WHO is paying for the maternity care?????

its not been paid prior????

they neither of them are paying anything towards it

and BOTH do not have a "right" to it by citizenship

YET......

and, even IF we take the ridiculous line that our health service should be run for the benefit of the world and its dog (with no suggestions of how to pay for that of course...just the idiocy that it some how "should") why should translators be added to that cost?(the hidden costs)

and like everything else comming from the lieing tory gob....the report is flawed...and for exactly the same reasons as the "25% of your tax thing"...the figures may be true, but they are applied misleadingly

"David Green, director of Civitas, said the new report suffered from a “shallow focus” which “misses out some vital costs”. "........

Is This include in working out the costs dodge.....???






"...Under EU law, UK businesses can recruit up to 20 foreign employees per year and as an added ‘bonus’ Brussels will offer to pay up to £1,000, in cash, for companies that hire foreign workers from within the EU.

In addition to company ‘bribes’, the EU is also offering thousands of young people cash payments of £1,000 and upwards to take a job in the UK as part of the European Commission ‘initiative’...'


http://www.ukimmigrationbarristers.com/blog/the-bribe-of-brussels-uk-companies-offered-1000-in-cash-by-brussels-to-employ-foreign-workers/



And our taxpayers money is going to the EU to pay for this!!!!

Fuzzy Zack wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11209234/Immigration-from-outside-Europe-cost-120-billion.html

Experts from University College London also said native Britons made a negative contribution of £591 billion over the 17 years

just keep letting your arse talk for you Fuzzy one.......

you clearly dont understand what you are reading.........

Jesus you are losing the plot Victor and your answers show it.

Point . You want me to prove that people are paid less than the minimum wage, when you made the claim many are, even though all evidence if they are paying taxes, which we know they are is the point that eludes you. This would show the level of tax they are paying, which again many are paying tax. This would prove what they earn, proving again you failed to even read the report because if you did you would not make such a daft claim, as many in employment over 80% would stand out if they did, which is not the case. The onus was on you to prove your claim, but there is no need, I know it was poor and rubbish, hence why it was east to debunk.


Point 2 There are many companies that only just get by in competition with each, even having said that you fail to understand the competitive market.

Point 3 & 4 No you do not understand because you do not even have much knowledge of them being in your own different industry. Some are very greedy and very much profit orientated, but all this is irrelevant and nothing more than a smoke screen on all these points to get away from the fact many immigrants and migrants are a massive benefit to our economy. Again the taxes show that many immigrants from the EU are not just even doing minimum wage paid jobs but far better ones, all of which you would know by the fact this report has looked at the taxes, the one Achilles heel you have not factored into your claims here.

Point 5 onward.
Your whole defense is that I am being being manipulated even though I can test the same methodology they have done, as they are providing everyone with the methods to find out for themselves. All of which shows your claims not only are unfounded but show the fear that you have to even take them up on this and use the information yourself to help show you that in fact you are wrong and too afraid to try.  
There is no hidden costs, because all the same parameters are applied to all groups here, whether British nationals, and EU and non EU immigrants. What ever way you factor this they are going to be far better at giving money in than money out where as the British public will cost the nation a fortune as seen, All you are doing is claiming small discrepancies (which you have no proof they have not factored in but making a wild claim) ar going to make a difference to the wide huge difference in input that EU nationals provide to our economy compared to British nationals. They will change hardly a thing because it will still show that EU nationals benefit the country.

Both you and Tommy have not read anything or dared to attempt to put the method to the test, instead you both make ridiculous claims none of which you can back or prove your claims. It shows both your counters are not based around any view point on the actual report that again is a smoke screen, as they are based off both your dislike of immigrants coming here. The report is so scary and damaging to you both, that you both attempt to make the most absurd claims.


If you wanna prove me wrong and their report wrong, do the study yourself, you have all the parameters there for you to test yourself.

As I said already, it doesn't take into account other costs, child care, school places, NHS, doctors, or other taxpayer funded services.



If earning £20,000, will only be paying between £2-3,000 in tax.


Put one child into the equation and that child costs will vastly outway contribution in tax.


Or how many are taking money out of our economy and sending back to east EU?


That is a cost too.


This study is completely biased, flawed and therefore irrelevant.

Brasidas wrote:Jesus you are losing the plot Victor and your answers show it.

Point . You want me to prove that people are paid less than the minimum wage, when you made the claim many are, even though all evidence if they are paying taxes, which we know they are is the point that eludes you. This would show the level of tax they are paying, which again many are paying tax. This would prove what they earn, proving again you failed to even read the report because if you did you would not make such a daft claim, as many in employment over 80% would stand out if they did, which is not the case. The onus was on you to prove your claim, but there is no need, I know it was poor and rubbish, hence why it was east to debunk.


min wage-revenue deductions-employment agency deductions for everything and anything they can get away with = less than minimum wage....



Point 2 There are many companies that only just get by in competition with each, even having said that you fail to understand the competitive market.

Point 3 & 4 No you do not understand because you do not even have much knowledge of them being in your own different industry. Some are very greedy and very much profit orientated, but all this is irrelevant and nothing more than a smoke screen on all these points to get away from the fact many immigrants and migrants are a massive benefit to our economy.

to the tune of 0.075% of the tax income to the nation...sure THATS MASSIVE

Again the taxes show that many immigrants from the EU are not just even doing minimum wage paid jobs but far better ones, all of which you would know by the fact this report has looked at the taxes, the one Achilles heel you have not factored into your claims here.

Point 5 onward.
Your whole defense is that I am being being manipulated even though I can test the same methodology they have done, as they are providing everyone with the methods to find out for themselves. All of which shows your claims not only are unfounded but show the fear that you have to even take them up on this and use the information yourself to help show you that in fact you are wrong and too afraid to try.  
There is no hidden costs, because all the same parameters are applied to all groups here, whether British nationals, and EU and non EU immigrants. What ever way you factor this they are going to be far better at giving money in than money out where as the British public will cost the nation a fortune as seen, All you are doing is claiming small discrepancies (which you have no proof they have not factored in but making a wild claim) ar going to make a difference to the wide huge difference in input that EU nationals provide to our economy compared to British nationals. They will change hardly a thing because it will still show that EU nationals benefit the country.

Both you and Tommy have not read anything or dared to attempt to put the method to the test, instead you both make ridiculous claims none of which you can back or prove your claims. It shows both your counters are not based around any view point on the actual report that again is a smoke screen, as they are based off both your dislike of immigrants coming here. The report is so scary and damaging to you both, that you both attempt to make the most absurd claims.


If you wanna prove me wrong and their report wrong, do the study yourself, you have all the parameters there for you to test yourself.

You seem so sure of yourself, and again it does factor in points from above, but then as seen you do not understand how.
Even with your points it would make hardly any difference to the gap between both EU immigrants and British nationals, because all factors are applied to both, thus with your claims to measures missed, (which they are not missed)the gap would in fact widen considerably more so in favour of EU immigrants and migrants, but I bet you cannot figure out why.
Lets see if you can work this out based on your claims, when all costs will be applied to ll people here.

I was right that Victor had lost the plot.
He should know by now to always be one step ahead and not behind.
He has the methodology to attempt to challenge these findings, yet choose to not read it for a start or even attempt to test it himself.

Hey ho

victorisnotamused wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11209234/Immigration-from-outside-Europe-cost-120-billion.html

Experts from University College London also said native Britons made a negative contribution of £591 billion over the 17 years

just keep letting your arse talk for you Fuzzy one.......

you clearly dont understand what you are reading.........

Let's see if you have the intelligence to explain it to me then?