[Politics] Brexit
- Thread starter KingstonSeagull
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Bladders
Twats everywhere
So many agenda's in the debate on both sides.
If you really want to know about the EU you really have to take time and do your own research. Unfortunately, the vast majority wont or don't have the time.
This referendum has shown just how self serving our politicians and media outlets are, not that we needed reminding.
Worrying that our free and democratic country is spoon fed 24 hours of bollocks for us believe.
So many agenda's in the debate on both sides.
If you really want to know about the EU you really have to take time and do your own research. Unfortunately, the vast majority wont or don't have the time.
This referendum has shown just how self serving our politicians and media outlets are, not that we needed reminding.
Worrying that our free and democratic country is spoon fed 24 hours of bollocks for us believe.
I don't have to do the research. I KNOW the EU is a false dream.
pastafarian
Well-known member
There is no need
the links I provided earlier for the report address previous studies and how they are wrong in their conclusions.
You obviously didn’t bother to read the questions and answer section I linked to you so here you are.(below)
There is a clear cost.
feel free to explain how their methodology outlined in the points below is flawed though
1. Table of results
2. Methodology
We have followed the methodology in the CReAM/UCL study closely. Where we have done something different we have carefully explained why. More broadly, we have continued with an approach to the fiscal cost of immigration that has been refined over time by successive researchers. It is notable that a number of our suggestions on the CReAM/UCL discussion paper issued in November 2013 were taken up in their final paper. The CReAM study found a cost of £114 billion (or £18 million a day) over the period 1995-2011 from all migration (see below)
3. Consistency of results
Our results are consistent with the earlier research in the field. The OECD, estimating over a large number of countries, finds that the fiscal impact rarely amounts to more than a single percentage point of GDP either way. Our finding is of a negative impact of slightly less than one percent. This is a cost equivalent to about 2% of government current receipts. Our findings of overall cost in money terms are similar to those of CReAM in the most recent years of the period they examined.
4. Don't the OBR say that we need high migration to reduce the deficit?
The OBR has always made clear that it assumes migrants have the same economic characteristics as the existing population, and thus - all other things being equal - that they contribute in just the same way. We do not think that the data provides support for that assumption, as even the CReAM/UCL paper showed that migration overall had resulted in a fiscal cost. If the overall fiscal impact of immigration to the UK is negative (and our work confirms that finding by CReAM/UCL) then we have been and are actually paying more taxes as a result of migration or have less to spend on public services.
5. But aren't the UK-born even more of a fiscal cost?
The UK-born have a 'fiscal deficit' of around £90 bn. This is more than accounted for by the fact that over £100bn of government spending is on pensions and social care for their elderly. The economic contribution of immigrants varies by group but overall the migrant population is not making a positive fiscal contribution even though it does not (yet) have that large elderly component to support.
6. How is it that Migration Watch UK found a negative contribution from EEA migrants when CReAM found a positive contribution?
CReAM found a positive contribution from EEA migrants only by adding up the fiscal impact over a number of years. What they did not make very clear was that they had observed a downward trend in fiscal contributions across the time period and by the 2011, only the EEA Other group (comprising the EU15 together with Norway, Iceland and Switzerland) was making a positive contribution. So, although CReAM found an overall positive result between 1995 and 2011, the annual fiscal impact of all EEA migrants was negative in the final three years they observed. Our findings are that this remains the case.
7. How is it that Migration Watch UK found a negative cost of £15.4 billion for non-EEA migrants for just one year (2014/15) when CReAM estimated a cost of £115 billion between 1995 and 2011 or around £7 billion a year?
The cost of non-EEA migration increased over the period, and CReAM estimated that by 2009 the fiscal impact of non-EEA migrants in that year was over £15 billion. Our findings are that the annual fiscal cost has remained around this level in real terms.
8. Haven't HMRC just published figures showing recent EEA nationals pay five times more than they get?
No. They only compare receipts of income tax and National Insurance with payments of child benefit and tax credits. The same comparison shows the UK general population paying six times more than they get. While on the one hand the comparison does not include taxes like VAT and excise duties, on the other hand it doesn't include housing benefit or any other DWP payments, and most importantly does not include the cost of any public services whatsoever.
9. HMRC say recent EEA migrants make a net fiscal contribution of £2.5 billion
This is nonsense. No one would describe this sum as a net fiscal contribution for the reasons given in paragraph 8. If the calculation were carried out for the UK population as a whole it would give a 'net fiscal contribution' of over £220 billion. If that were so, the UK would not be in deficit!
10. HMRC say recent EEA migrants pay £3 billion in income tax and National Insurance
That is consistent with our estimation of around £9 billion paid by EEA migrants arriving from 2001 onwards who obviously comprise a larger group than those arriving in the four years used by HMRC. It takes no account, of course, of costs.
11. HMRC say recent EEA migrants only receive £0.5 billion in tax credits and child benefit
This compares with our estimation of around £3.6 billion in working-age benefits paid to EEA migrants arriving from 2001 onwards, again a larger group than the arrivals over a four year period used by HMRC. That is quite consistent too, bearing in mind that we now have official figures for EEA-led claims to DWP benefits of £1.7 billion in 2013/14 (for all years of arrival), and the consensus that claims to tax credits and child benefit - unsurprisingly - are less likely to be made in the earliest years after arrival.
12. Why do you call people arriving in 2001 onwards 'recent'?
To allow comparison with previous research that chose this date as distinguishing two different 'generations' of migrants. We imagine HMRC chose four years because this is the period of their proposed benefit restrictions.
i never said immigration feeds crime but well done for inventing i did......you said
i simply showed you a BBC report of migrants who had come here to rob people of their money,its crimes that have added to crime statistics and crime rates i.e. an impact
Last edited:
I think the funniest thing is that kids are supposed to be encouraging parents to support the EU. What do they know? I fully admit I was out for myself until about 35 (self interest) when I then considered the wider benefit. It's a shame that under 35's think this country should be a state of Europe because, apparently, we, the country that introduced so much to the world, is incapable of anything other than being a cash cow Biatch.
skipper734
Registered ruffian
What's up Trig? Research reveals facts.
Bladders
Twats everywhere
There's a whole generation that need their arses wiped for them. and they're all under 35.
UK GDP is 5th highest in the world, Switzerland's is 19th. I don't understand why you're saying theirs is higher.
skipper734
Registered ruffian
Bladders
Twats everywhere
Luxembourg is loaded!!
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,031
so Qatar has the biggest GDP in the world then? typical mis-quote a stat to make a point, and utterly failing.
Hampster Gull
Well-known member
- Dec 22, 2010
- 13,465
I know you came late to this thread, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
The whole REMAIN argument is 99% based on the (guesswork) financial implications to this country if we leave the EU.
Seriously , where have you been the last few weeks?
In the toilet?
Financial implications yes, no longer able to survive no. Its not a difficult distinction.
There's definitely an argument for that.
Hampster Gull
Well-known member
- Dec 22, 2010
- 13,465
An uncomfortable truth for the outters, the difference btw gross and net
Bladders
Twats everywhere
You're being a bit over literal there.
Like if we beat a team 5-0 and say we murdered them today.
Doesn't mean the team went out and literally stabbed the oppo to death does it.
Its been made pretty clear that we wont be able to survive financially on our own.
NOT that the British will become extinct if we leave the EU.
FFS give me strength
Hampster Gull
Well-known member
- Dec 22, 2010
- 13,465
You're being a bit over literal there.
Like if we beat a team 5-0 and say we murdered them today.
Doesn't mean the team went out and literally stabbed the oppo to death does it.
Its been made pretty clear that we wont be able to survive financially on our own.
NOT that the British will become extinct if we leave the EU.
FFS give me strength
You need more than strength
Bladders
Twats everywhere
All of that money can only be spent how Brussels dictates it's spent! FFS