Some might say it's proof of double standards that one side gets people banned but despite repeated accusations of bullying the other side are allowed to carry on their own sweet way until the person is hounded off NSC.
Nicely edited edited your pointless insult out of that reply I see.
!!
You know full well it was Soulman and he only ever got abusive at the end after he was constantly bullied and trolled.
It would greatly help your case if you actually provided the correct link for the paper that the article was based on. It wasn't article 235 as you posted but actually article 381.....
https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/381
I wasn't surprised you chose this one...It's usually either this one or the one that suggests that there's evidence that immigration has a detrimental effect on the lowest wage earners. If I were you I would have gone with the latter as there are at least other sources outside of migrantwatch uk (a proven right wing leaning group) that also support that one. But ok you chose this one so let's have a look while I hope to teach you something about processing Cognitive Dissonance.........
The research claims to have taken a model from Dustmann and Frattini (2014), which showed that there has been an overall net positive fiscal effect with regards to migrants since the year 2000. However, the Migrationwatch research mentions that there was a downward trend in positive fiscal contribution in the latter years of Dustmann and Frattini's study and thus they claim to have extended the methods used to ascertain the fiscal contribution of immigrants and extended it for the year 2014/15 and found the numbers have dropped further and extrapolated those figures that were being waved around by the pro-Brexit press at the time.
Ok now the first lesson in working through CD is don't just dismiss it out of hand because you don't like it. Most Brexiters display a spectacular inability to get past this first stage. So the next stage, once you accept that you are facing evidence that disagrees with your point of view, is to try and come to terms with it, by either changing your mind to some degree, or at least amalgamating the presented evidence with what you know from other sources. It's with this in mind that I'm going to make a few observations about the migrationwatch paper but let it be known right here that I'm gonna actually accept it's base conclusion that the downward trend in the fiscal contribution of immigrants continued and even worsened in 2014/2015. So well done there. Claps for you.
Now for a few caveats...Let's look at some of the numbers provided in that article.....
View attachment 88487
The first quite staggering figure is the detrimental fiscal effect that UK natives have. A whopping deficit of nearly a nearly 88 billion pounds. So according to this model, which calculates revenue gained through taxation vs government expenditure on "the broad categories of old-age benefits, working-age benefits, health and education", if we shut off immigration right now we'll still be losing 88 billion a year. So why is the number for natives so high? Well it's obvious if you think about it. It's the pensions. So wow. Pensions and other services caused a deficit of 88 billion in 2014/2015? That's some figure. Obviously we must be getting money from other sources than taxation because that figure is obviously unsustainable year on year. So what about immigration's effects on sources of revenue outside of taxation? Not included in this study, which is a shame.
Now let's look at the fiscal effects of migrants. The next obvious point to be made is that non-EU migrants are far more of a fiscal strain than EU migrants. In fact, when you look at the numbers you can see that the only demographic in the whole country that is putting in more than it's getting out is recent migrants from the EU 15. So one conclusion that can be made from this "pro-Brexit" piece of research is that we're chucking out the only group of people that based on this model are putting in more than they're getting out. So well done there.
Other points can be made regarding the model used. According to the paper, it only measures the effect of 1st generation immigrants and their families. By it's own admission it even says "this paper counts as second-generation immigrants only those under the age of 16." (Section 1.1.1) So it's factoring the costs of these immigrant family's strain on the education and other sectors, and then conveniently forgetting about them just as they're about to reach the age at which they make a positive fiscal contribution. And therein lies the problem with the small amount of research that the pro-Brexit press bandy about that is supposed to prove that EU immigrants are a strain on the economy. They don't take into account the positive contributions of the 2nd and 3rd generation children of migrants. They look at what are the IMMEDIATE negative effects of immigration and disregard the long term positive ones. Remember that this paper only provides figures for the year 2014/2015. And remember that it's only one paper and that there are plenty of other sources outside the right leaning migrantwatch UK company than can show the positive effects of immigration. . Now note that I'm not claiming that the paper is wrong (as is the usual knee jerk reaction of most Brexiters). Remember I conceded you had a point with this source and gave you clap.
Now what you have to do when the next remainer posts up a particularly robust piece of evidence that has links to references from distinguished professors in economics is attempt to process it in the same way that I have demonstrated with this article. THEN you might be able to shed the mantle of the "stupid Brexiter", at least for yourself.
I'm not sure we'll have as much luck with the others though to be honest.
