Poll: The EU Referendum: How Will You Vote? (June Poll)

[Tunney]

... and once they become old and sick, they'll cease to be a net benefit to the economy and be a net drain. Future liabilities always seems to get ignored in the endless immigration debate.

If they work hard for 40-50 years and pay tax, they'll almost certainly still be net contributors over their lifetime. And I'd wager that a fair few would leave the UK on retirement anyway.

 

[scorza]

What do you think happens to British people when they get old? They become magically self sufficient?

Yes, that was my point - what's yours?

If they work hard for 40-50 years and pay tax, they'll almost certainly still be net contributors over their lifetime. And I'd wager that a fair few would leave the UK on retirement anyway.

My understanding is that most EU migrants end up doing low paid jobs - y'know, the jobs us lazy Brits won't do. I imagine you're right that a fair few will retire outside of the UK, but how many? Probably fewer than you think imo if the Commonwealth immigrants of the '60s and '70s are a bellwether.

 

[Freakbro]

Letting in 1.5 million skilled workers that have a job to come to is not a bad thing.

Err...but the argument is, where will they live? How will the infrastructure cope, Schools, Hospitals etc

 

[platypus]

I may be thicker than a whale omelette (probably am) but how can anyone claim asylum here if they've travelled through numerous safe countries already?

Essentially, because everyone who has signed up to the Geneva Convention has agreed to allow them too.

It also however allows for countries to remove people to other countries that they could have safely claimed Asylum in (eg Britain could remove refugees to any of the European countries defined in the Asylum and Immigration Act if 2004).

So I guess the next question could be how many asylum seekers do we actually remove?

After a quick search I can only find

About 2 per cent of the world’s refugee population live in the UK.

The number of people seeking asylum in the UK peaked in the early 2000s with 84,130 applications (excluding dependants) in 2003. It has remained much lower since this point. In 2014, there were 31,300 new applications for asylum in the UK. 59 per cent of asylum applications were initially refused in 2014. Of those refused around 75 per cent lodged appeals. Subsequently 28 per cent of appeals in 2014 were successful.

By the end of 2014 there were 117,161 refugees, 36,383 pending asylum cases and 16 stateless persons in the UK: amounting to 0.24 per cent of the population.

obviously take these statistics with a slight pinch of salt as I haven't time to verify these.

On the subject of removal

In 2008, the UK Border Agency claimed that it ‘removed’ one person from the UK every eight minutes. In 2014, 38,767 people were removed from the UK or departed ‘voluntarily’ after the initiation of removal.

The majority of those who are deported or removed are not asylum seekers. In 2014, 6,788 asylum seekers were removed (approximately 18 per cent of all removed persons). In 2006, 18,280 people were removed.

 

[platypus]

... and once they become old and sick, they'll cease to be a net benefit to the economy and be a net drain. Future liabilities always seems to get ignored in the endless immigration debate.

Are you suggesting that "these people" can't save for their retirement?

 

[Six6siX]

Yes, that was my point - what's yours?

The same as Tunneys: If an immigrant has been working the majority of their life here, they will more than likely have contributed towards a net gain to the economy - or at the very least no different to any native British person. So proportionally, there is no difference whether they are an immigrant or not.

My understanding is that most EU migrants end up doing low paid jobs - y'know, the jobs us lazy Brits won't do. I imagine you're right that a fair few will retire outside of the UK, but how many? Probably fewer than you think imo if the Commonwealth immigrants of the '60s and '70s are a bellwether.

Then your understanding is a bit flawed.

edit:
http://www.ippr.org/files/publications/pdf/migrant-employment-outcomes-in-europe-labour-markets_April2015.pdf?noredirect=1

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/migrants-uk-labour-market-overview

There is a fair distribution and shows just how many proportionally, go into so many different industries - professional, skilled and unskilled.

 

[Freakbro]

Of course they do, in a way adding to the problem in some respects. I mentioned several factors. Migrant families particularly non-EU have much higher birthrates and can apply to have family brought over.

I know they do but a lot do not and equally the British public suffer. I'll give you one such account. My local Hospital be brought in 2500 EU non-qualified nurses and covered all relocation and other costs. Each of them cost circa £25,000 in expenses in the first year. Then we have announced that the Nurses bursary is going to go? I think British people are quite rightly and justified in being peed off.

You also forget that a lot of migrant workers send money back home that will not benefit the country. If you know migrant workers which I am sure you will say you do. You will know they send hundreds of pounds home each month.

One of my friends from Iraq sent back over to his brother in several lump sums to the tune of £35,000. He'd made several payments like this previously in the 10years he had been here. I know a fair few Polish blokes who rent here (2 families living in one house) who manage between them to send £1,000 a week back. Cheap area to rent, work industry type jobs (that have seen a salary contraction by the way despite business picking up). There would be tens of thousands of people doing exactly the same. You are talking tens of millions yearly at the very least gone from the UK.

They do pay tax yes. They may pay £200 a month in tax but are probably sending twice that out of the UK.

Which will be offset by the British emmigrants sending their money back to the UK, especially those earning huge ££££ in the Middle East

 

[joeyjojo]

Big business are the ones evading by far the largest portion in "take". I think I said in the last thread that while £120bn may be dodged in tax, my belief is that amount is not even close and estimate it to be much higher, perhaps h £500bn (yes £0.5tr). The panama papers should make us all question the lower figures.

I agree that tax evasion is a problem, along with criminal bankers, the sell off of public services, outsourcing, underfunding of the NHS, hundreds of millions of £ being used to prop up the high end London property market...

But what's that got to do to EU movement of people? They're not the ones engaging in massive tax avoidance. Why did you bring it up?

 

[robfosters]

Err...but the argument is, where will they live? How will the infrastructure cope, Schools, Hospitals etc

Isn't this also the problem with EU immigration though? And you seem well in support of that.

 

[Mr Jack]

My understanding is that most EU migrants end up doing low paid jobs - y'know, the jobs us lazy Brits won't do. I imagine you're right that a fair few will retire outside of the UK, but how many? Probably fewer than you think imo if the Commonwealth immigrants of the '60s and '70s are a bellwether.

EU immigrants from A8 countries tend to earn less than UK nationals, EU immigrants from the EU-14 countries tend to earn rather more. The overall figure is that EU immigrants earn more than UK nationals (source).

 

[Tefal]

If they work hard for 40-50 years and pay tax, they'll almost certainly still be net contributors over their lifetime. And I'd wager that a fair few would leave the UK on retirement anyway.

Actually they'll almost certainly be net recipients.

Not much of our population is net contributers.

Well well bwlow half.

 

[scorza]

The same as Tunneys: If an immigrant has been working the majority of their life here, they will more than likely have contributed towards a net gain to the economy - or at the very least no different to any native British person. So proportionally, there is no difference whether they are an immigrant or not.

So we'll highlight the fact that they're a net gain while they're working, but brush the fact that they'll be a net drain when they're retired under the carpet. Yup, I believe that's the way official studies into immigration work.

Look, I'm not saying that these people shouldn't have the right to access public services like the NHS, state pensions in retirement - they should be able to. What I'm saying is we need to properly understand the holistic effects of EU migration in the context of this debate, instead of do what the EU funded academic studies tend to do, which is to say that EU immigrants are a net gain for the UK while they're young, healthy and in work so everything is fine.

 

[Mr Jack]

Actually they'll almost certainly be net recipients.

Not much of our population is net contributers.

Well well bwlow half.

I don't believe that naive calculations comparing net tax receipts to net cost of services received actually provide a useful measure of people's contribution. That being said, a major part of people's service consumption comes in childhood; for immigrants who arrive as adults this cost is not needed because it's already been met by their country of origin thus the overall net figure is much more positive.

 

[Freakbro]

Isn't this also the problem with EU immigration though? And you seem well in support of that.

It wasn't my argument, it is the anti-immigration point.

I was just querying why he was so quick to say '"if we need them then 1.5 million is no problem"

My point is, since unemployment hasn't risen due to the levels of immigration we are currently experiencing, then we 'must need' these 330,000 too - so what's the problem?

 

[Freakbro]

Actually they'll almost certainly be net recipients.

Not much of our population is net contributers.

Well well bwlow half.

Is that just taken on Income Tax receipts though?

Does it take into account indirect taxes....I know the data/graphs you are on about, I just can't remember what it includes.

 

[Metallifux]

It wasn't my argument, it is the anti-immigration point.

I was just querying why he was so quick to say '"if we need them then 1.5 million is no problem"

My point is, since unemployment hasn't risen due to the levels of immigration we are currently experiencing, then we 'must need' these 330,000 too - so what's the problem?

Unemployment would be less with the current unemployed filling those roles? Hahaha funny, yes I know.

 

[Freakbro]

So we'll highlight the fact that they're a net gain while they're working, but brush the fact that they'll be a net drain when they're retired under the carpet. Yup, I believe that's the way official studies into immigration work.

Look, I'm not saying that these people shouldn't have the right to access public services like the NHS, state pensions in retirement - they should be able to. What I'm saying is we need to properly understand the holistic effects of EU migration in the context of this debate, instead of do what the EU funded academic studies tend to do, which is to say that EU immigrants are a net gain for the UK while they're young, healthy and in work so everything is fine.

Looking at historical figures though, isn't it about 33% of immigrants stay and settle, whereas 66% go home?

 

[awaybreaktoday]

If UK votes to leave the last thing anyone will be worried about in 5 - 10 years will immigration, that is for sure.

 

[Six6siX]

So we'll highlight the fact that they're a net gain while they're working, but brush the fact that they'll be a net drain when they're retired under the carpet. Yup, I believe that's the way official studies into immigration work.

Look, I'm not saying that these people shouldn't have the right to access public services like the NHS, state pensions in retirement - they should be able to. What I'm saying is we need to properly understand the holistic effects of EU migration in the context of this debate, instead of do what the EU funded academic studies tend to do, which is to say that EU immigrants are a net gain for the UK while they're young, healthy and in work so everything is fine.

I'm not ignoring it - I just don't think it's an issue - especially considering that they would be at an advantageous start as an immigrant due to not using any school services etc.

If they are of net gain to economy while working (just the same as any equivalent native person), and we assume that some are a net gain and some are net deficit in retirement (again, just the same as any native person), then proportionally, their presence should be of no consequence to the financial viability of public services, surely?

 

[Freakbro]

Unemployment would be less with the current unemployed filling those roles? Hahaha funny, yes I know.

No, because you are looking at jobs as a static number, whereas it isn't.

More people create more demand and thus create more jobs.