I’m not of the opinion that the vast majority of people come to the UK do so to claim benefits, but if the above is true then they won’t mind if there are no benefits on offer.

So why is it that you appear to feel strongly that they shouldn’t get any benefits at all? If it’s not to do with how much they’ve paid in, it’s just because they’re foreign? If they are out of work for 2 months surely it makes more sense for them to get benefits than face the upheaval of moving back home and potential moving back here when they find another job?

Which is a guess, why would people bother to go away and do research to prove your guess wrong if you can’t be botherd to find anything to suppourt it yourself.

I have no idea BTW, but I would counter guess it’s not, and can at least suppourt that with a resoned hypothesis. Simple fact of the progressive tax system is that you have to be significanlty above the average earnings to reach a point where you’ll be paying in more than you get out. So an influx of largely unskilled labour and tradesmen (stereotypical fruit pickers and plumbers) earning below the national average will be net drains on the tax system.

There’s certainly research showing that on average immigrants (certainly those from the EEA) contribute more than than UK citizens. You also seem to be ignoring the fact that they are generally educated ‘for free’ by another country which we get the advantage of. The NHS would collapse without foreign-trained doctors and nurses.

Immigrants to the UK since 2000 have made a “substantial” contribution to public finances, a recently published report claimed.

Those from the European Economic Area (EEA – the EU plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) had made a particularly positive contribution in the decade up to 2011, the authors noted, contributing 34% more in taxes than they received in benefits and services.

“Given this evidence, claims about ‘benefit tourism’ by EEA immigrants seem to be disconnected from reality,” one of the study’s authors Christian Dustmann, professor of economics at University College London, said.

That’s not the whole picture of course. Quite an interesting overview here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25880373

The NHS would collapse without foreign-trained doctors and nurses.

there is also a huge difference in perception between skilled migrants – here to earn a living, and the working class/labourer who comes over to earn a living. If you can drop the accent then even better especially if you are white. You get to be accepted without the prejudice that comes with being an immigrant.

So why is it that you appear to feel strongly that they shouldn’t get any benefits at all? If it’s not to do with how much they’ve paid in, it’s just because they’re foreign?

I’m not overly emotional about it, “strongly” is perhaps a bit overstated. It’s just my opinion, nothing more and nothing I would gnash my teeth or lose sleep over.
I believe that I’ve already been over the points in your second sentence, but yes, I believe that the parent country is responsible for the support of it’s unemployed citizens. Goes both ways, the UK govt would be responsible for paying the welfare benefits to UK citizens working wherever.

I’ll answer your question with the original quote:

Why is that a problem?

kill of the multiplier effect

I agree with the rest of your point, in the long term it’ll lead to an average/fairer EU. But you could be looking at generational timescales.

And it’s of dubious benefit too. Remeber in recent years charities banging on about ‘trade not aid’? It’s far better to invest in, and buy products from, countries than simply pay money into them. For example as this is a sporty forum if I buy a boat from Devotti, or a bike from PYGA then that money is far better for the Polish or S.African economy than just giving them the money as they can then build another boat/bike, whereas just giving the money is a finite process.

The movement of people in Europe crosses and confuses politics.

The freedom of movement of people is supposed to be one of the core 4 freedoms of the whole project but like so many EU issues this gets confused with national interests. Some of the most pro European parties and countries struggle to come to terms with this – which, while unsurprising given that the whole EU is based on so many fudges and inconsistencies, is depressing.

The freedom of movement of people is a good thing and immigration is a net positive for the UK economy. Ditto the freedom of goods, services and capital. They are fundamental to what Europe SHOULD be about.

Funny how people who support freedom of movement for people and respecting immigrants to this country are often unhappy about EU companies coming here and bidding for work.

But then again Europe is a very confused issue!!

yes, I believe that the parent country is responsible for the support of it’s unemployed citizens. Goes both ways, the UK govt would be responsible for paying the welfare benefits to UK citizens working wherever.

OK, I’ve lived in Spain for 18 years now. I pay all my taxes here, use the local services (Spanish NHS, for example) and if unemployed I’d not hesitate to claim Spanish dole. Why should the UK government support me (particularly when I don’t even have the right to vote for them anymore)?

Do you think that the Spanish tax payers would be happy to foot the bill for British people being unemployed in their country? Being able to pay your own way should be a prerequisite to permitting you to stay. It certainly is the case in Canada (you must prove that you have sufficient funds to support yourself in case you fall unemployed). They have the best system IMHO, tough as it is.

I love the idea that immigrants are simultaneously stealing our jobs and here only to claim our benefits. I’ve yet to see any evidence that benefit tourism is a problem that’s worth worrying about either.

whatnobeer – Member
I love the idea that immigrants are simultaneously stealing our jobs and here only to claim our benefits. I’ve yet to see any evidence that benefit tourism is a problem that’s worth worrying about either.

It’s subterfuge tbh, takes away the glare of tax dodging tourism!

Do you think that the Spanish tax payers would be happy to foot the bill for British people being unemployed in their country?

He is a Spanish tax payer. And for all intents and purposes he is Spanish – having lived there for 18 years. 😕

Do you think that the Spanish tax payers would be happy to foot the bill for British people being unemployed in their country?

What, after 18 years paying tax into the system? Why would that be a problem?

wrecker – Member
Do you think that the Spanish tax payers would be happy to foot the bill for British people being unemployed in their country? Being able to pay your own way should be a prerequisite to permitting you to stay. It certainly is the case in Canada (you must prove that you have sufficient funds to support yourself in case you fall unemployed). They have the best system IMHO, tough as it is.

Personally, I think free movement is the much better system.

He is a Spanish tax payer. And for all intents and purposes he is Spanish – having lived there for 18 years.

So not really comparable with the instance of economic migration then?

Personally, I think free movement is the much better system.

Well if all of the countries of the world agreed to it, so would I. Until then; no thanks.

He is a Spanish tax payer. And for all intents and purposes he is Spanish – having lived there for 18 years.

TBH the only reason I haven’t got round to taking out nationality is the paperwork involved. That, and there’s no real advantage to me doing so.

I imagine if the UK left the EU there would suddenly be a whole load of new British citizens as people in a similar situation to mine (but in the UK) decide to take out British nationality.

So not really comparable with the instance of economic migration then?

I came over here initially looking for work as an English teacher.

wrecker – Member
He is a Spanish tax payer. And for all intents and purposes he is Spanish – having lived there for 18 years.

So not really comparable with the instance of economic migration then?I’d wager the outside of refugees the vast majority of migration is economic.

I wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for economic migration! 😆

I came over here initially looking for work as an English teacher.

What would have happened if you didn’t find any?

So not really comparable with the instance of economic migration then?

Eh?

I’d consider a Pole who’d lived here for 18 years to be effectively British too – and I’d think it absolutely ridiculous if he got told he wasn’t allowed to claim British benefits.

Eh?

You just said he’s Spanish, so how is it comparable with what is being discussed here? If he’s not a foreign citizen any more, it’s not comparable.

I’d consider a Pole who’d lived here for 18 years to be effictively British

I don’t disagree.

What would have happened if you didn’t find any?

No doubt I’d have headed back to the UK. Same as most economic migrants – you do realise that you’re not automatically eligible for benefits, right? (Asylum seekers are different BTW)

You just said he’s Spanish, so how is it comparable with what is being discussed here? If he’s not a foreign citizen any more, it’s not comparable.

How many years do you need to pay tax for this magical changeover to happen, then?

wrecker – Member
Well if all of the countries of the world agreed to it, so would I. Until then; no thanks.

That’s just silly. Free movement worldwide is not something that would or could happen over night, so where it exists, it should supported and encouraged.

Well, it’s probably time to put some actual numbers on this rather than conjecture.

The idea that people come over here to claim benefits in enormous numbers is, I am afraid, a total fallacy. There was a report on this due to be issued earlier this year, the outline findings were issued but then it was official suppressed by Theresa May. It was fairly public (if you track immigration issues as, unfortunately, I have to) which was bizarre.

Also the idea that immigrants come here and send money home resulting in a net loss to the economy is, while true in some cases, not true.

The UK benefits from a net fiscal gain from migration of 0.46% of GDP. There are only a handful of countries in the EU that lose out from migration, notably Germany and France. Poland also loses out.

The difference between benefits and services claimed by immigrants and contributions from tax is, from reasonable sources, generally between +/-1% of GDP, and the majority of studies from unbiased sources show that there is a net gain from taxation from immigrants.

The Office of Budget Responsibility even predicts that more immigrants will, in the long term, reduce the national public debt. If there were to be zero net migration they say the public debt would be around £145bn by 2062, as opposed to £75bn with high net migration. This is based on the assumption of most immigrants being of working age.

All of this information is taken from various places on the Migration Observatory website.

http://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/fiscal-impact-immigration-uk

If you want to narrow this down specifically to the EEA then these immigrants pay 34% more in taxes than they receive in benefits and services.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/05/migration-target-useless-experts

Aside from the possible criminal database issue, which I would suspect effects probably half of naff all of the incoming population, I don’t see how anyone that does some actual research can object to free movement in the EU.

Everyone in the EU’s taxes pays for the EU as a whole at some point, so there’s no reason to say “you’ve not paid for your share so you can’t come in to the UK”.

For a bit of perspective my wife has lived in the UK for over 7 years and has no entitlement to vote, has contributed around £85000 to the UK public sector and has no entitlement to benefits. And I have to prove I earn a minimum of £18500 to “support” her in order for her to get a visa at a cost of £1000-£3500 every 2.5 years.

How many years do you need to pay tax for this magical changeover to happen, then?

Dunno. Grum?

That’s just silly. Free movement worldwide is not something that would or could happen over night, so where it exists, it should supported and encouraged.

Not for me thanks.

Oh, and as a further blow to the argument against, the net annual fiscal conrtibution from taxes from immigrants (106% of GDP in 1999-2000 and 99% of GDP in 2003-2004) is higher than that of UK born people (101% of GDP in 1999-2000 and 88% of GDP in 2003-2004, so even when the contribution is negative the immigrants are “less negative”) .

So maybe we should have loads of immigrants and send those lazy natives to other countries to sponge somewhere else…

The “good for the economy” thing is a bit of an odd one.

It’s good in the sense that the economy grows (err of course it does, you’re adding people, people produce & consume things).

It also doesn’t benefit people evenly. Fairly well off people in secure, professional jobs benefit as they don’t face any new competition for work and can get cheaper services (hairdressers, hotels, cafes, shops, tradesmen etc).

Poorer people don’t consume as many services. They are likely to face downwards pressure on wages. So not much upside, with a big kick in the balls.

So, while I agree there are many benefits to immigration it’s highly cynical and disingenuous for a politician to lecture people “that the economy benefits blah blah”.

It also doesn’t benefit people evenly.

I don’t see how this can be the case when there are more taxes coming in then being spent on everyone (although under a Tory government that may be a laughable idea).

tomd – Member
The “good for the economy” thing is a bit of an odd one.

It’s good in the sense that the economy grows (err of course it does, you’re adding people, people produce & consume things).

It also doesn’t benefit people evenly. Fairly well off people in secure, professional jobs benefit as they don’t face any new competition for work and can get cheaper services (hairdressers, hotels, cafes, shops, tradesmen etc).

Poorer people don’t consume as many services. They are likely to face downwards pressure on wages. So not much upside, with a big kick in the balls.

So, while I agree there are many benefits to immigration it’s highly cynical and disingenuous for a politician to lecture people “that the economy benefits blah blah”.
As has been pointed out that’s not a problem with immigration, that’s a problem with neo-liberal policy.

How much does immigration affect housing availability and prices?

Not really Joe (the neo-liberal bit – whatever that means)but tomd, try turning that argument on its head?

In my little town/big village there is an over-supply of barbers. Prices all fixed and all lazy and complacent. In come the Turks with a great Turkish barbers at half the price with much better service – hot towels, lemon scent, clean razor for each customer, occasionally a coffee, and open on Sunday. Local barbers moan but customers are happy – better service, lower price. Brilliant wet shave and cut yesterday all for less than a dry cut in the locals!!

Good stats, munrob – amazing how Farage gets away with peddling BS on harmful effects of immigration. Like Salmond, he gets away with it too. Depressing.

munrobiker – Member

It also doesn’t benefit people evenly.

I don’t see how this can be the case when there are more taxes coming in then being spent on everyone (although under a Tory government that may be a laughable idea).[/quote]The actual reason why is fairly complex.

Moreover, even when there are equal benefits, the timings of those benefits (i.e. who sees it first) can be different. The short answer is, that this is just the way the economic system works, the long answer lies in the works of Friedrich Hayek.

Unfortunately for us, the way the current ‘free’ market is set up in the UK, the piggies at the front of the trough tend to be big business (think who benefits first and most from chep imports and and lower labour costs) and ultra-wealthly private individuals who get the inside track on investments into those businesses.

Which free market is that?

Like Salmond, he gets away with it too. Depressing.

You just can’t help yourself sometimes, can you? Why on earth bring Salmond into this given that he a)has retired and b) is/was pro immigration?

For a very simple reason WNB. The mainstream political parties do not now how to deal with either bloke. As a result, the get away with peddling BS and people swallow it. Both are dangerous trends but at least one has been snuffed out (temporarily).

The mainstream parties really do need to work out how to address this. The mis-perceptions on immigration and EU coming from UKIP are massive and yet they seem to be largely accepted (Like a currency is an asset). The EU is screwed for other reasons but its core freedoms should be welcomed and embraced. Someone should tell the French too!

teamhurtmore – Member
Not really Joe (the neo-liberal bit – whatever that means)

Give it whatever label ye like, but the system isn’t set up so everyone wins. It may be setup so everyone can win, but there’s only a limited number of winning places.

That’s not really got anything to do with immigration as such. (although immigration can be used as a tool)

Imo, capitalism is fine, add it to the concept of universal services, magic, problem these days is that the universal services bit is going backwards and not getting expanded into new areas as it should..

Right, so he’s nothing to do with this debate at all other than the you thinking he deals in BS, which, every other politician does.

Back to the debate in question, I know munrobiker’s wife is from outside the EU, but it seems bonkers that someone who is highly educated, has the skills to earn good money (and has indeed done so) and is married to someone else in the UK still needs to renew their visa every few years. Why? Who does that benefit?

Moreover, even when there are equal benefits, the timings of those benefits (i.e. who sees it first) can be different. The short answer is, that this is just the way the economic system works, the long answer lies in the works of Friedrich Hayek.

Unfortunately for us, the way the current ‘free’ market is set up in the UK, the piggies at the front of the trough tend to be big business (think who benefits first and most from chep imports and and lower labour costs) and ultra-wealthly private individuals who get the inside track on investments into those businesses.

While I disagree with the principle of that, I can’t really argue with the truth what you’re saying. It’s a shame the world is how it is.

Whatnobeer- the “every 2.5 years” thing is actually pretty much in line with what binners was saying about Dave fannying around the edges of the issue of immigration to help win back UKIP voters. It was previously every 5 years, and after 5 years you could apply for citizenship. The cost was around half what it is now, the quota higher and provided you could get SOMEONE (not just the UK spouse) to guarantee to pay for them then any marriage visa that wasn’t found to be a sham at the interview stage was allowed.

The current situation has now greatly restricted the issuing of spouse visas, to the point where (this is a recalled stat) 47% of the population couldn’t afford it. And, considering that a spouse visa never allowed recourse to benefits, the idea of a lower income limit is a bit daft. People do ask me quite regularly (because, for some reason, talking about how nasty immigration is in front of my immigrant wife is a very popular thing to do) “but what about these Asian families coming over and claiming benefits straight away, I’ve seen it”- the truth is that it is impossible. It can’t happen and never could happen.

So, Dave (or, really Theresa May) has torn apart a few hundred families (most notably Marianne Bailey – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22806941 ) just to be seen to be tackling immigration.

Similarly the idea of reducing the number of student visas is something Theresa is very keen on to get down immigration. Now, I don’t want to seem stupid, but surely reducing the number of student visas won’t actually affect net immigration after 3 or 4 years? Say, before the new policy, 180,000 students came in (which is roughly correct). Those 180,000 would, 4 years later, leave. Net immigration = 0. Theresa says “nope, there must only be 60,000 maximum”. So, one year 60,000 in then 180,000 out. Net migration = -120,000. But then, 3 years later, 60,000 in and 60,000 out- voila, Net migration = 0 again.

And the stupidest thing about that policy is that a lot of UK universities depend on the overseas students to make money! 180,000 students each paying £15,000-£20,000 a year is of vital importance to the UK’s higher education sector. To reduce that income then try and boost the numbers by charging UK students more seems like a really good way of reducing the amount universities have to invest in the service they offer.

As has been pointed out that’s not a problem with immigration, that’s a problem with neo-liberal policy.

What does that even mean?

Teamhurtmore – I’m well aware of the benefits of immigration. My wife is from one of the newer EU countries and she’s ace. You just can’t find hot local women who like mountain biking!

The macro-economic argument is only part of the story. If you ask people on the street how they feel about immigration in their answer will be the result of all kinds of factors. For some people, their wages have improved and their local area has been reinvigorated by new arrivals. For others, they will have experienced pressure on local services, housing problems, falling wages, unemployment etc. Some people are just a bit xenophobic or racist, but I don’t think that’s the majority.

tomd – Member

What does that even mean?
Everyman for themselves.

Give it whatever label ye like, but the system isn’t set up so everyone wins. It may be setup so everyone can win, but there’s only a limited number of winning places.

Not sure I agree with that – even including the current Tory government, if you look at the history of the past 50 years most of us have been winning. Of course there is still poverty, but you only have to look at things like these photos to realise just how far we’ve all come.

What is undoubtedly true is that some of us are winning more than others, of course.