Only this time it’s Brits abroad, getting more in benefit (collectively) than we pay to foreigners…

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/19/-sp-thousands-britons-claim-benefits-eu

They’ll all be shipped back in chains as soon as the Tories / UKIP withdraw from the EU…..

Ireland has another reason to dislike us 🙂 Bloody foreigners going over there, drinking their kids’ Guinness 😉

Is the financial data available?
Does the UK govt pay more in benefits to foreign nationals than brits abroad receive?

odd, that the guardian would display the data in such a partisan manner 😉

they could of course have just said that there are 29,095 UK nationals claiming unemployment benefits in other EU nations, while 64,830 EU nationals (+122%) claim corresponding benefits in the UK.

Or they could have said that out of 27 states for which they have data, 5 have more UK nationals claiming benefits than their counterparts are claiming in the UK, 4 roughly equate and 16 states have more nationals claiming benefits in the UK than UK citizens claiming similar in their countries.

But that might not be the message theyre aiming for I guess….

From the article:

while the number of jobless Britons receiving benefits in Ireland exceeds their Irish counterparts in the UK by a rate of five to one.

Jaysus, that’s a turnaround 😆

Don’t forget the Greens, they want an EU referendum too.

They’ll all be shipped back in chains as soon as the Tories / UKIP withdraw from the EU…..

Don’t know about “shipped back in chains”, but I suspect a lot of the pensioners living on the Spanish coast would receive an unpleasant surprise the next time they visit the doctors.

But that might not be the message theyre aiming for I guess….

I think the message is that it works both ways, whereas I’ve not heard a single pip about the fact there are UK citizens claiming benefits abroad and what might happen to then after these supposed reforms Cameron wants.

In many countries, eg Germany, unemployed benefit is linked to your previous wage, so can be very generous for a limited period (80% of salary for 1 year IIRC).

Im pretty sure even UKIP recognise it works both ways. I think the crux of their case is that there is a substantial imbalance driven by differing levels of generosity.

The imbalance is borne out by the guardian’s data.

It doesn’t though prove causality between the imbalance and generosity as wrecker is alluding too.

What Stoner* says

Interesting to get a bit of balance though and poor poor Ireland as Footflaps notes but spin is not helpful

Only this time it’s Brits abroad, getting more in benefit (collectively) than we pay to foreigners..

That’s not true.

Those figures show that there a lot more Foreign Nationals are claiming benefits in the UK than the number of UK nationals claiming benefits abroad.

That’s not true.

tbf the article cites many cases where it might be:
n Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, Austria, France and Ireland the number of Britons banking unemployment cheques is almost three times as high as the nationals of those countries receiving parallel UK benefits – 23,011 Britons to 8,720 nationals of those nine countries in the UK.
…and the number of brits claiming benefits in countries with lower cost of living and paying lower rates of benefits is very low indeed, whereas we seem to be higher numbers of claimants in what might be considered more generous countries…
…but as far as i can see no one has managed to calculate a total. This is difficult to achieve in reality, in that it is complicated by other things that are not strictly benefits but nevertheless brits being a drain on the country’s public purse eg the amount of retirement age brits in spain.

Those figures show that there a lot more Foreign Nationals are claiming benefits in the UK than the number of UK nationals claiming benefits abroad.

…is missing the point of 90% of the text of the artcle linked to rather than the funky graph.

..is missing the point of 90% of the text of the artcle linked to rather than the funky graph.

How is it missing the point?

The OP started the post with:

Only this time it’s Brits abroad, getting more in benefit (collectively) than we pay to foreigners…

Which is very misleading.

The party politics seems pretty mild and balanced for a newspaper.

And the overall argument should help (but probably won’t) knock a lot of the immigration BS on its head.

The aggregate numbers alone should give enough perspective.

Gobuchul, did you read the article? If you did you will realise that it is not about the total number of people, its about the total number of, errr, actual money. (And the distribution of our benefit claimants in europe bpcompared to the corresponding nationalities of those claimng benefits over here) And that is what 9/10 of the article goes on to explain, as well as the complexity in quantifying this.

I would not like to be a british retiree in spain or france right now.

I think the statistics show quite clearly the number of Eastern European claimants in the UK. It’s up to the other countries, like Ireland, to deal with the Brits. As @Stoner says we are a net importer to those claiming EU benefits.

@tmh given those two points I make above how do these stats “knock on the head” immigration claims, they show quite clearly they are justified ?

I think I know the one Brit claiming benefits in Slovenia.

They’ll all be shipped back in chains as soon as the Tories / UKIP withdraw from the EU…..

Getting 29,095 brits back and shipping out 64,830 europeans would likely be seen as somewhat of a success……..

And whilst we look down our noses at the benefit scroungers, the top 1% richest people own more assets than the rest of the world combined. Something has gone badly wrong somewhere.

Wouldn’t surprise me if some of the 11,000 were claiming dole in both England AND Ireland whilst travelling …. between the two.

Getting 29,095 brits back and shipping out 64,830 europeans would likely be seen as somewhat of a success……..

More complicated than that IMHO Age and social/healthcare needs spring to mind, and no statistics are provided for how much more the 9000-odd retirees on benefits in spain, france and italy would cost us compared to the 18000 people they displaced were that to happen.

Jambalaya yes we are a net importer of benefit claimants as individual ‘heads’, but the article claims that british clamiants abroad as a group would seem to be costing the rest of europe more in actual money than we are paying out. The article needs links to sources though.

raveydavey – listen from 6:10
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04xf1d5
top 1% = 70m people. And if your house is worth more than £500k w/o a mortgage, you’re one of them.

1% richest people own more assets than the rest of the world combined

very oxfam. not very useful statistic since asset values are mainly of domestic worth. not global worth.

Getting 29,095 brits back and shipping out 64,830 europeans would likely be seen as somewhat of a success……..

From Wikipedia: the British population of Spain in 2014 was estimated to be about 297,229

… and loads of them are retirement age, with assets tied up in the wonderful Spanish property market.

More complicated than that IMHO Age and social/healthcare needs spring to mind, and no statistics are provided for how much more the 9000-odd retirees on benefits in spain, france and italy

True, Also no mention of the number of claimants’ dependents (children), the associated uplift in benefits given due to this, nor the costs of their education and healthcare.

The article needs links to sources though.

To be fair, it’s tripe without them.

… and loads of them are retirement age, with assets tied up in the wonderful Spanish property market.

So? The spanish govt receive money from the UK for exactly this reason.

you’re one of them.

Hmm, that’s me. Might be top 1% on global scale (eg inc Africa and rural China), but no where near UK top 1%!

I think the statistics show quite clearly the number of Eastern European claimants in the UK

Claiming very low (by European standards) benefits, which make no significance difference to the overall benefits bill in the UK.

Hmm, that’s me. Might be top 1% on global scale (eg inc Africa and rural China), but no where near UK top 1%

and that’s what oxfam are playing at.

they want youu to think that “wealth” is one pie that stays the same forever and increases in inequality = increases in poverty.

Whereas in reality, although inequality has may well have risen (relativity), poverty (absolute) has actually fallen just as fast.

not everyone is going to agree with me (or Fraser Nelson who I rate), but I dont think people should mangle statistics to spin an emotional response that’s contrary to the facts.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/01/what-oxfam-doesnt-want-you-to-know-global-capitalism-means-theres-less-poverty-than-ever/

Would not surprise me if Hora was talking bollocks again with no evidence whatsoever to back up his claim

Oh no plasticStalin is having a go

Claiming very low (by European standards) benefits

I’d dispute that. Germany may have been held up as an example, but there were a lot of provisos in there and germany are not europe. Many of the others require a period of paying into an insurance scheme to be worth anything.
I think we have a very generous benefits system, all things considered.

Only Ireland and Germany have materially more Brits claiming unemployment benefits than we have claiming here.

Jambalaya yes we are a net importer of benefit claimants as individual ‘heads’, but the article claims that british clamiants abroad as a group would seem to be costing the rest of europe more in actual money than we are paying out. The article needs links to sources though.

@julian, its not the UK’s business that foreign benefits are more generous than ours. Also looking at the numbers they would have to be more than double for the net cost to be the same.

Claiming very low (by European standards) benefits, which make no significance difference to the overall benefits bill in the UK.

@footflaps I count 32,000 from fairly recently new EU member states in Eastern Europe – even at £100 a week that’s $166m pa and I strongly suspect the total bill is higher than that. Not chump change.

From memory the last census showed we have 500,000 Poles in the UK for example. So with figures above that means 3% of them are claiming unemployment benefits.

That’s Comrade plasticStalin to you.

Comrade.

Passes name to Stasi overlords

Hora you could of course provided evidence for your assertion/claim to prove it was true and defeat me with facts or retract it or shoot the messenger.

I thought things were a bit shit for the world’s poor, and that the super-rich were having a great time. Thanks to a spectator journalist (who’d a thunk it eh?), I now realise things ain’t so bad after all. Righto, as we were then.

jambalaya – Member
@tmh given those two points I make above how do these stats “knock on the head” immigration claims, they show quite clearly they are justified ?

Immigration is a minor issue. It is positive for the UK and marginally positive for wages. Most immigrants come to study, join family and then to work. Then you add that it’s a two way thing. Really needs to be related to a side show for the extremists.

On the Fraser Nelson article, good to see. Like UK income inequality, world inequality is falling although headlines try to make out it is different. Funny to happen under the Tories watch too!!!

And back to the Guardian

Dr Roxana Barbulescu, researcher on international migration at the University of Sheffield, said the numbers claiming unemployment benefits were minuscule. “Thirty thousand people, or 2.5% of all British nationals, in other EU member states means that the overwhelming majority of Brits abroad as well as European citizens in Britain are not an undue burden for the countries in which they live.”

Quite. Not really a story when you think about it.

Is wealth inequality really falling? I have no idea what “world inequality” means…sounds like a wooly phrase tbh.

Income inequality is pretty meaningless in the grand scheme of things. We can’t trust what the wealthy tell us they earn anyway.

DD – I doubt the paper and the author are your cup of tea, but you may be interested in the second half of A Heath’s article in today’s Torygraph on this issue.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11356298/Far-too-many-of-our-politicians-dont-grasp-how-markets-work.html

I will have a read later (I promise). I’m too busy trying to close the gap today (from the wrong end, judging from the guests in the rather swanky Cotswolds hotel I’m working at today 😛 ).

How’s it been after the assassination attempt? Clearly JY and I need to assign our contracts more carefully. 😐

Wealth inequality really depends and as you note it is vague enough tp argue it either way

one of the artefacts* of the slump has been to narrow the gap and there has been some redress since feudal times.
That said the reduction is limited

I dont think people should mangle statistics to spin an emotional response that’s contrary to the facts.

I agree but I am unsure how you can read that emotive right wing appeal and not conclude that this is exactly what it is doing

The hijacking of Oxfam by the politicised left is nothing short of a tragedy. It’s heartbreaking…..
It has today come up with some questionable figures suggesting that the richest 1 per cent will soon own over 50 per cent of the wealth

Oddly the author just tells us this rather than refute them with figures as the like.

TBh the article raises some interesting points but its more polemic** and cherry picking of stats than Oxfam ever was.

FWIW i think an interesting debate, unlikely on here I grant you, could be had about how the spread of global capitalism has raised more people out of poverty – remember the target is for them to have $1 per day and when they had nothing its easy to both raise them whilst the rich get ever richer – they are not mutually exclusive.

FWIW i find it rather interesting that a system designed to exploit the poor helps them a tiny bit but helps the wealthy become even more wealthy gets lauded by the wealthy as some sort of noble reducer of wealth and inequality. Its clearly inherent in capitalism that we get winners and loser and , IMHO, the best you can argue is the losers have done better under exploitation that they did without it. I would be interested to see the stats about what % of the new wealth – the increase in the pie has gone to the workers and has gone to the owners. i think that we will find as they “drag” folk out of poverty [ an artefact I would argue rather than design of capitalism] they aremaking substantially more as always. I would wager that it time to post up the Ragged trousers philanthropist 😉

* the greatest one has been poverty reduction [ west] as it is calculated relative to the average wages s as this drops so do the % ” In poverty” rather oddly we can all be on average worse off and a result fewer of us ar e in poverty. That is you can prove anything with statistics so you need to look at the bigger picture sometimes

** My favourite

The Oxfam report is stuffed with the usual leftist cliches

I am sure Stoner will agree that is full of right wing cliches and trope. oh the irony

We are, right now, living through the golden age of poverty reduction. Anyone serious about tackling global poverty (and I’m afraid we have to exclude Oxfam from this category) has to accept that whatever we’re doing now, it’s working – so we should keep doing it. We are on the road to an incredible goal: the abolition of poverty as we know it, within our lifetime.
Those who care more about helping the poor than hurting the rich will celebrate the fact – and urge leaders to make sure that free trade and global capitalism keep spreading. It’s the only true way to make poverty history.

Proper nice troll that though if posted on here 😛

The bottom 80pc may statistically own just 5.5pc of the world’s net wealth, but that is because they have mortgages. They control far more of the world’s assets than such numbers suggest.

Is this correct dont the bank own my house till I pay ?
I would also wager that the bottom 80% globally dont have mortgages so a weak point though his broad thrust is accurate re stats..

FWIW my only argument would be it can clearly be done in a much fairer way and it is designed to make the rich richer not the poor slightly less poor. …if machines could do it cheaper they would use a machine. Those investing are doing it for money not people. We could, quite easily, make it fairer and nicer if we GAS.

Its pretty obvious a financial and economic model designed to make larger amounts of money will be successful at it just as it is pretty obviosu it wont share it equally,