The Gooner Forum

nut flush gooner wrote:

northbank123 wrote:

nut flush gooner wrote:

arseofacrow wrote:I think "net" figures for immigration contributions to the economy are misleading as they cannot possibly include all of the effects on the economy and society.

I'd take figures and scare stories from all sides with a massive pinch of salt until you know exactly what they're including in the figures. And more importantly, what they're not including.

It's quite simple really net means net! In other words taxation receipts less money spent on social security. If the figure is positive then how can it have a detrimental effect on the economy? Socially having a culturally diverse country is no bad thing, unless you are a UKIP supporter .

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-article ... migration/

Social security makes up about a third of government expenditure compared to taxation which makes up all of their income - hardly a fair comparison.

No real analysis of impact on public services. Our healthcare system (£140bn a year) is stretched to breaking point and NHS trusts' budgets continue to spiral out of control. More immigration means more strain on the system, more staff required (at taxpayer cost) and longer appointment and procedure waiting times which affects workforce productivity. Have you seen health board expenditure on interpreters for Eastern Europeans? It's frightening in some cases.

Healthcare is just one facet of government expenditure but at an average cost of over £2,000 per person in the UK apparently this isn't relevant when you are considering net contribution to the economy?

Did you read the article?

Here is an excerpt:

"European immigrants who arrived in the UK since 2000 have contributed more than £20bn to UK public finances between 2001 and 2011. Moreover, they have endowed the country with productive human capital that would have cost the UK £6.8bn in spending on education.

Over the period from 2001 to 2011, European immigrants from the EU-15 countries contributed 64% more in taxes than they received in benefits. Immigrants from the Central and East European ‘accession’ countries (the ‘A10’) contributed 12% more than they received".

And another one(note the highlighted quote):

"The positive net fiscal contribution of recent immigrant cohorts (those arriving since 2000) from the A10 countries amounted to almost £5bn, while the net fiscal contributions of recent European immigrants from the rest of the EU totalled £15bn. Recent non-European immigrants’ net contribution was likewise positive, at about £5bn. Over the same period, the net fiscal contribution of native UK born was negative, amounting to almost £617bn.

This thread is another classical make sweeping statements without actually knowing the facts, or trying to use information that is only part of the problem. Just one more point, if you go to your local hospital you probably will see a lot of immigrant workers from the cleaners right through to the doctors/nurses. A lot of these people are from outside the EU, so if you have a restrictive policy for EU workers what do you do with all these people that want to come and work for the NHS? There is a well publicised staffing crisis right now due to the home grown workers not taking the available jobs.

gazzatt2 wrote:

nut flush gooner wrote:

northbank123 wrote:

nut flush gooner wrote:

arseofacrow wrote:I think "net" figures for immigration contributions to the economy are misleading as they cannot possibly include all of the effects on the economy and society.

I'd take figures and scare stories from all sides with a massive pinch of salt until you know exactly what they're including in the figures. And more importantly, what they're not including.

It's quite simple really net means net! In other words taxation receipts less money spent on social security. If the figure is positive then how can it have a detrimental effect on the economy? Socially having a culturally diverse country is no bad thing, unless you are a UKIP supporter .

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-article ... migration/

Social security makes up about a third of government expenditure compared to taxation which makes up all of their income - hardly a fair comparison.

No real analysis of impact on public services. Our healthcare system (£140bn a year) is stretched to breaking point and NHS trusts' budgets continue to spiral out of control. More immigration means more strain on the system, more staff required (at taxpayer cost) and longer appointment and procedure waiting times which affects workforce productivity. Have you seen health board expenditure on interpreters for Eastern Europeans? It's frightening in some cases.

Healthcare is just one facet of government expenditure but at an average cost of over £2,000 per person in the UK apparently this isn't relevant when you are considering net contribution to the economy?

Did you read the article?

Here is an excerpt:

"European immigrants who arrived in the UK since 2000 have contributed more than £20bn to UK public finances between 2001 and 2011. Moreover, they have endowed the country with productive human capital that would have cost the UK £6.8bn in spending on education.

Over the period from 2001 to 2011, European immigrants from the EU-15 countries contributed 64% more in taxes than they received in benefits. Immigrants from the Central and East European ‘accession’ countries (the ‘A10’) contributed 12% more than they received".

And another one(note the highlighted quote):

"The positive net fiscal contribution of recent immigrant cohorts (those arriving since 2000) from the A10 countries amounted to almost £5bn, while the net fiscal contributions of recent European immigrants from the rest of the EU totalled £15bn. Recent non-European immigrants’ net contribution was likewise positive, at about £5bn. Over the same period, the net fiscal contribution of native UK born was negative, amounting to almost £617bn.

This thread is another classical make sweeping statements without actually knowing the facts, or trying to use information that is only part of the problem. Just one more point, if you go to your local hospital you probably will see a lot of immigrant workers from the cleaners right through to the doctors/nurses. A lot of these people are from outside the EU, so if you have a restrictive policy for EU workers what do you do with all these people that want to come and work for the NHS? There is a well publicised staffing crisis right now due to the home grown workers not taking the available jobs.

Want was the cost to keep people on benefits during that time ?

arseofacrow wrote:Please provide all of the figures which are use to come to those totals in that report, then we can assess what has been included and excluded. Cheers

the playing mantis wrote:What about costs on infrastructure and house price inflation (nfg probably thinks that's a positive) caused by the unsustainable growth in the levels of migration in the last 20 years? And the costs on the state of those replaced by these migrants who could be doing those same jobs if only employers didn't always want to pay the lowest and the government made meaningful modifications to the skills and education and benefits system.

There are hundreds of similar studies as this and if people are inclined they can probably find ones which support both sides, although I imagine they are net contributors, that's not the point. The debate isn't a purely economic one. That's just part of it. Nfgs is ignoring his and the other points put to him and just banging the same drum, a classic pro europe/unlimited migration tactic. As for the lazy assertion on the NHS that's the same. No one wants to stop all immigration. They want to choose. Filling skills gaps as necessary. Ie overseas nurses and doctors and cleaners if necessary.

nut flush gooner wrote:

arseofacrow wrote:Please provide all of the figures which are use to come to those totals in that report, then we can assess what has been included and excluded. Cheers

Just read the report its quite well summarised. I have highlighted two parts which I think make my point. If you look at different studies they all pretty much come to the same conclusion. The report is also issued by the University College London, there are similar older studies issued by the London School of Economics. Pretty credible sources.

DB10GOONER wrote:

nut flush gooner wrote:

arseofacrow wrote:Please provide all of the figures which are use to come to those totals in that report, then we can assess what has been included and excluded. Cheers

Just read the report its quite well summarised. I have highlighted two parts which I think make my point. If you look at different studies they all pretty much come to the same conclusion. The report is also issued by the University College London, there are similar older studies issued by the London School of Economics. Pretty credible sources.

Are they as credible as a YouTube fanboy video? Just asking.

nut flush gooner wrote:

DB10GOONER wrote:

nut flush gooner wrote:

arseofacrow wrote:Please provide all of the figures which are use to come to those totals in that report, then we can assess what has been included and excluded. Cheers

Just read the report its quite well summarised. I have highlighted two parts which I think make my point. If you look at different studies they all pretty much come to the same conclusion. The report is also issued by the University College London, there are similar older studies issued by the London School of Economics. Pretty credible sources.

Are they as credible as a YouTube fanboy video? Just asking.

Haha are you trying to troll me . Better source than the local down in Dublin me thinks (or anywhere in the UK).

DB10GOONER wrote:

nut flush gooner wrote:

DB10GOONER wrote:

nut flush gooner wrote:

arseofacrow wrote:Please provide all of the figures which are use to come to those totals in that report, then we can assess what has been included and excluded. Cheers

Just read the report its quite well summarised. I have highlighted two parts which I think make my point. If you look at different studies they all pretty much come to the same conclusion. The report is also issued by the University College London, there are similar older studies issued by the London School of Economics. Pretty credible sources.

Are they as credible as a YouTube fanboy video? Just asking.

Haha are you trying to troll me . Better source than the local down in Dublin me thinks (or anywhere in the UK).

I don't know about that. I often find The Bloke Down The Pub makes more sense than many politicians, bankers and economists.

northbank123 wrote:Nut flush this is a forum so people have different opinions and perspectives. Naturally everybody believes that what they say is true so there are going to be disagreements.

But on any topic - be it football related or not - you brand anybody who disagrees with you as an idiot (or a xenophobe) for not sharing your view. Constantly replying to people in such a condescending manner as though you are operating on a different intellectual platform to everyone else is a bit tiring tbh.

northbank123 wrote:Nut flush this is a forum so people have different opinions and perspectives. Naturally everybody believes that what they say is true so there are going to be disagreements.

But on any topic - be it football related or not - you brand anybody who disagrees with you as an idiot (or a xenophobe) for not sharing your view. Constantly replying to people in such a condescending manner as though you are operating on a different intellectual platform to everyone else is a bit tiring tbh.