Poll: General election voting intentions poll

[Schlong&Stable]

Again, immigrants contribute to the country more than native Brits!

Complete nonsense.

Firstly, the source for this claim is quite explicit in saying that it only applied to EU immigrants. Those from outside the EU are a drain on the economy.

Secondly, the study itself was deeply flawed as it didn't factor in various costs for the immigrants such as their dependants, impact on infrastructure etc. If you do so, even the EU immigrants end up costing us money.

And finally, the total net contribution (best case scenario) was less than £5bn. We spend twice that on foreign aid. So the benefit is, at best, trivial. More accurately its a small negative for the economy.

As for native Britons, we turn over about £2.5t a year. The idea that Britons don't contribute to the economy is a joke.

 

[Danthus]

Because they are net contributors and the very people who will help solve Britain's housing issue!

How?

 

[ubersonic]

Those from outside the EU are a drain on the economy.

And voting UKIP in order to try and leave the EU will fix that how? (this is where the conversation came from).

 

[Schlong&Stable]

And voting UKIP in order to try and leave the EU will fix that how? (this is where the conversation came from).

It doesn't matter where the conversation came from, the claim was false. Immigrants do not make a net positive contribution to the UK. EU immigrants MAY make a small net contribution, but its still less than our overseas aid budget.

The economic argument for mass immigration is non-existent.

 

[thep02]

And voting UKIP in order to try and leave the EU will fix that how? (this is where the conversation came from).

And there's the rub most ukip voters I know don't even mind Poles but they hate Blacks and Asians.

 

[koolpc]

I dont hate blacks or asians!! Thy deserve the best. They belong here just like me!!

Just that one has to close the doors so that those inside can build up the life that will make them and this country proud and liveable.

 

[AGD]

The evidence of a significant boost to GDP per capita from high net migration is very slim. The pure economic case is weak - if high net migration does boost GDP per capita, it must be by a small amount.

The questions you should ask are: What is fair and ethical for people from abroad? How does increasing population density affect our quality of life? Does it benefit society to have more diversity? Do you want to be able to move to live in Europe easily?

I think there are good cases to be made either way for these questions, but the pure economic argument for high net immigration (which does not discriminate between skilled/unskilled workers) seems weak.

(For context, I'm voting Green).

 

[D.P.]

Complete nonsense.

Firstly, the source for this claim is quite explicit in saying that it only applied to EU immigrants. Those from outside the EU are a drain on the economy.
.

I'm going to stop you right there because you are already wrong.

EU immigrants contribute 34% more then they receive in benefit
NON-EU immigrants contribute 2% more than they receive in benefit.
British adults are a net drain and receiving 11% more in benefits than they contribute in taxes.

Since you failed at your very first statement I wont bother reading the rest of your nonsense until you can back it up with facts and not prejudice.


The fact that the immigrants that have the far tighter control end up contributing less, albeit still more than British adults, is undeniable proof that the last thing we need to do is enact pointless restrictions on EU immigration.

 

[Yaayuh!]

I do despair.

Great Britain is not 'GREAT' anymore!!!!!!

I assume you support Britain First

 

[ubersonic]

It doesn't matter where the conversation came from, the claim was false.

No it wasn't because the claim was about EU immigrants not total immigrants >.>

Here I will put the tree together for you:

EU immigrants are contributing massively to the UK economy. that money can be used to build more social housing for the poor, improving infrastructure and services, such as education, health and transportation.

Cut immigration down to a tiny amount. Lets concentrate on the country and make things better for those who are here now! Who contribute to the UK economy.

Again, immigrants contribute to the country more than native Brits!

Complete nonsense.

See now? You replied to a reply and misunderstood the context as you hadn't seen the chain.

 

[D.P.]

The evidence of a significant boost to GDP per capita from high net migration is very slim. The pure economic case is weak - if high net migration does boost GDP per capita, it must be by a small amount.

I'm going to stop you right there because there is strong evidence that immigration does increase GDP per capita. immigration has net positive contributions higher than the Native British, that entails that per capita GDP has to increase on average. That is basic maths and is indisputable.


If you have say 100 people contributing X and then add 5 imigrnats contributing X+10 then the average contribution per capita is now (105X +50)/105, increasing GDP per capita by 50/105.



Increasing the population size form immigration is irrelevant if the mean contribution is larger than the non-immigration population.

 

[D.P.]

It doesn't matter where the conversation came from, the claim was false. Immigrants do not make a net positive contribution to the UK. EU immigrants MAY make a small net contribution, but its still less than our overseas aid budget.

The economic argument for mass immigration is non-existent.

Absolutely ridiculous and proved completely wrong.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-24813467



Now, are you going to retract tour false statement and admit you were wrong?

 

[Terminal_Boy]

I'm going to stop you right there because you are already wrong.

EU immigrants contribute 34% more then they receive in benefit
NON-EU immigrants contribute 2% more than they receive in benefit.
British adults are a net drain and receiving 11% more in benefits than they contribute in taxes.

Since you failed at your very first statement I wont bother reading the rest of your nonsense until you can back it up with facts and not prejudice.


The fact that the immigrants that have the far tighter control end up contributing less, albeit still more than British adults, is undeniable proof that the last thing we need to do is enact pointless restrictions on EU immigration.

I have a cunning plan my lord!

EU immigrants contribute 34% more then they receive in benefit - invite more over!

NON-EU immigrants contribute 2% more than they receive in benefit - strictly limit this.

British adults are a net drain and receiving 11% more in benefits than they contribute in taxes - Cull the weak, the sick and the ****less.

 

[ubersonic]

British adults are a net drain and receiving 11% more in benefits than they contribute in taxes - Cull the weak, the sick and the ****less.

We shall call this plan: ATOS!

 

[AGD]

I'm going to stop you right there because there is strong evidence that immigration does increase GDP per capita.

The most recent OBR forecast suggests an annual 0.02% boost to GDP per capita due to high net migration over the next 5 years. They also say this is because the average age of the population is lowered from the migration rather than migrants per se offering higher output.

I said the economic case was weak. The OBR (widely respected) agrees with me.

I welcome positive arguments for high net migration (fairness, diversity, so we can move easily abroad), but just don't see the economic argument standing up.

 

[Judgeneo]

Absolutely ridiculous and proved completely wrong.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-24813467



Now, are you going to retract tour false statement and admit you were wrong?

Only mostly wrong, he was right about the contribution being less than foreign aid spending. (0.46% compared to 0.7%), and right that the effects of children of migrants, and indirect effects are often not accounted for or misunderstood.

This paper has more detail than the BBC article

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/migobs/briefing - Fiscal Impacts_0.pdf

 

[Schlong&Stable]

Absolutely ridiculous and proved completely wrong.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-24813467.../www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/1.37

 

[elmarko]

Great Britain is not 'GREAT' anymore!!!!!!

Is this the British equivalent to "dey took our jerbs!"?.

 

[D.P.]

Only mostly wrong, he was right about the contribution being less than foreign aid spending. (0.46% compared to 0.7%), and right that the effects of children of migrants, and indirect effects are often not accounted for or misunderstood.

This paper has more detail than the BBC article

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/migobs/briefing - Fiscal Impacts_0.pdf

Foreign aid has absolutely nothing to do with immigration and is entirely irrelevant.


One of the main reasons why EU immigrants are net contributors because they typically don't have children or their children are already older and so much of the expenses have already been incurred in their home country.

Birth rates for immigrants are now approximately the same as British birth rates, so the costs are equivalent.



I have previously read the original paper in detail, it doesn't detract form what I said. I never take news headlines for granted. There are always factors that aren't accounted, for positive and negative. The best evidence we have is immigration is economically strongly positive, all available evidence indicates such.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

I won't address anything you have said or provide evidence to counter your own, I will just blindly reassert my position.

Okay.