melias shoes
Well-known member
- Oct 14, 2010
- 4,830
You'll be at selhurst before you know it.I'll buy a CPFC season ticket if Turkey ever joins the EU. It will never happen.
You'll be at selhurst before you know it.I'll buy a CPFC season ticket if Turkey ever joins the EU. It will never happen.
As someone that has claimed out of work benefits I'd suggest it was because my 20+ years work in IT didn't qualify me to work as a nurse. I assume you'd be happy for me to treat you ?
No one, least of all me, is suggesting a free-for-all. The data in the article I linked showed that all migrant groups contribute positively to British coffers. I think it is probably by, say, French hedge fund managers who have fled French taxes but on the whole the overall balance on British exchequer appears to be positive.
You could be right. Here are a couple of French views
http://www.thelocal.fr/20160218/wary-french-could-scupper-camerons-brexit-deal
http://www.thelocal.fr/20160218/why-a-brexit-would-mean-a-windfall-for-france
Don't forget in the future Turkey , Ukraine and various other countries want to join the EU , God knows what the mess will be like then
Don't forget in the future Turkey , Ukraine and various other countries want to join the EU , God knows what the mess will be like then
I feel your pain....I have to fund the ****ing English.
I can never understand how Turkey can be classed as a European country anyway.
As someone that has claimed out of work benefits I'd suggest it was because my 20+ years work in IT didn't qualify me to work as a nurse. I assume you'd be happy for me to treat you ?
As someone that has claimed out of work benefits I'd suggest it was because my 20+ years work in IT didn't qualify me to work as a nurse. I assume you'd be happy for me to treat you ?
What if you're a Polish nurse who applied for a job in the NHS that was advertised in Poland. You move for work and want to bring your child to the UK, but it will take some time. You are entitled to child benefit and it is being used for the benefit of the child, what difference does it make how this nurse chooses to use the benefit to which she is entitled?
No one, least of all me, is suggesting a free-for-all. The data in the article I linked showed that all migrant groups contribute positively to British coffers. I think it is probably by, say, French hedge fund managers who have fled French taxes but on the whole the overall balance on British exchequer appears to be positive.
The data may not be quite what it seems ...
The fiscal effect of immigration on the UK exchequer has gained considerable prominence in recent months. The results of all research in this area depend on the method used and on the assumptions underlying them.
This paper examines a “discussion paper” issued by the Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration (CReAM) at University College, London. The authors, Dustmann and Frattini, adopted the “average cost” method for their reported results but also calculated an alternative scenario using the “marginal cost” method preferred by some. This paper focuses on the reported results, but we also examine the alternative scenario in Annex A.
ii. The authors themselves found a fiscal cost to the UK from migrants in the UK of £95 billion between1995 and 2011. This result can be found only in Table 5 at the end of their paper; the figure is not mentioned in their text and the abstract of their paper makes no mention of any fiscal cost at all....
7. The analysis in this paper points to some clear conclusions.
a. On Dustmann and Frattini’s own findings, there was no positive fiscal impact from migration in any year.
b. Migration to the UK since 2000 did not have a positive fiscal impact either.
c. The claim that recent EEA migrants contributed 34% more in revenues than they received in state expenditures is simply wrong. It relies on assumptions that employees earn the same as the UK-born population when their own figures show they do not, that self-employed migrant contribute far more than those employed when they have no evidence of this whatsoever and – wholly unrealistically - that all of them own the same investments, property and other assets as the UK-born and long-term residents from the day they arrive in the UK.
d. Similarly the claim that recent EEA migrants are only half as likely to claim ’benefits or tax credits’ is highly misleading. In the context of establishing the fiscal cost what matters is the amount people receive, and different benefits pay different amounts to different people.
Recent EEA migrants are much more likely to receive tax credits than the UK-born population,and more likely to receive housing benefit, and these are likely to be paid at higher rates in view of their lower incomes
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/pdfs/BP1_37.pdf
... reading through this paper certainly undermines if not completely demolishes the original reports conclusions.
Who to believe?
That's fine...........so surely it would be even better to allow the premiership footballers, French hedge fund managers and other assorted wealthy types to come unhindered, and then bin off the millions of unskilled and/or low skilled foreign Herberts that are clearly a drain on the UK taxpayer.
I am sure this can be sorted out, maybe a kind of points based system that means we get those that we need or want, and reject those who we dont.
Glad you are on board.
These low-skilled individuals also make a positive financial contribution and take a lot of jobs which British people won't - the cleaners, the nanny's the street cleaners. I have no problem with this.
They use a different methodology to reach a different conclusion it seems. Who authored this paper? I would argue that the academic standards at UCL are probably higher than at Migration Watch. I will trust independent academics over anti-EU pressure groups.
They did more than use different methodology they pointed out clear inaccuracies and omissions. Migration Watch have often been proved right on previous occasions frequently highlighting inconvenient facts and contradicting misleading reports. Not to say they can't be wrong or have their own agenda but their findings are similar to previous authoritative reports.
A House of Lords report specifically looking in to The Economic Impact of Immigration taking evidence from numerous sources (including migration watch) had previously come to the conclusion that ..
“We have found no evidence for the argument, made by the Government, business and many others, that net immigration—immigration minus emigration—generates significant economic benefits for the existing UK population”. (Abstract) Despite the claims of the immigration lobby there is no economic argument in favour of current levels of net migration.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/82/82.pdf
Will take a look. *opens it*...will take a look later...also isn't 2008 a little out of date now.