Afghanistan

[i8hibsh]

27 minutes ago, Boy Daniel said:

Whilst the numbers you quote are no doubt correct we currently have a void in the workforce left by the idiocy of Brexit. Maybe those desperate to flee the tyranny of the Taliban would relish the chance to work for a living and in doing so contribute to the reduction of the debt and the rebuilding of the economy. 

 

 

This is how it should work, they come here, work, pay their way.  However, it will not be the case.  They have kids at a rate far eclipsing the current rate in the UK - who pays for the kids?

 

Someone earning basic wage for menial work (and this is what it will be) can not justify financially having numerous kids.

 

Approx 100k per kid to educate from age 5 to 18.  This is just 1 kid and only education.,  They will not pay 100k tax in their lives.

 

35,000 unskilled workers, who procreate at staggeringly high levels - the government are having a ****ing laugh surely.

 

We can barely educate, clothe, feed and look after the 68 million we currently have.

[DETTY29]

2 hours ago, AlimOzturk said:

Hearing everywhere that the men fleeing are cowards. You know, they are petrified of being tortured and killed by a superior enemy but they are cowards because they won’t stand and fight. At the same time they are calling for women and children to evacuated. 
 

Children yes. But are women incapable of standing up, getting organised and fighting for their country as well? It’s their rights and freedoms that stand to be oppressed more than anyone. Men are threatening to oppress their human rights. Don’t expect other men to fight to restore them. If men seen women fighting for their rights and dying for them it wouldn’t be long before the world took action to stop this madness

Only the 70k Afghan soldiers have died fighting the Taliban and now we leave in full, not even air support.

 

Hardly cowards.

[Don Dan]

3 minutes ago, i8hibsh said:

 

 

This is how it should work, they come here, work, pay their way.  However, it will not be the case.  They have kids at a rate far eclipsing the current rate in the UK - who pays for the kids?

 

Someone earning basic wage for menial work (and this is what it will be) can not justify financially having numerous kids.

 

Approx 100k per kid to educate from age 5 to 18.  This is just 1 kid and only education.,  They will not pay 100k tax in their lives.

 

35,000 unskilled workers, who procreate at staggeringly high levels - the government are having a ****ing laugh surely.

 

We can barely educate, clothe, feed and look after the 68 million we currently have.

So we do nothing. Leave them to their fate which will inevitably be death. 
what ever the refugees contribute will go into the pot that we all are contributing to be £1 or £1m. This how society works or it’s how society should work. 

[i8hibsh]

4 minutes ago, Boy Daniel said:

So we do nothing. Leave them to their fate which will inevitably be death. 
what ever the refugees contribute will go into the pot that we all are contributing to be £1 or £1m. This how society works or it’s how society should work. 

 

 

Take in our share.  And by our share I mean spread out throughout the world, not just the good old handful of countries who usually get lumbered with them.

 

They should not be fast tracked ahead of those already waiting on housing etc, no special privilege and one strike and they are out.

 

All fair imo.

 

Our kindness should not be unconditional.

[i8hibsh]

There is always a humanitarian crisis, it never ends.  We have to start putting our foot down imo.  Countries need to start taking responsibility for themselves.

[Taffin]

I can sort of see where i8 is coming from. There are plenty of stable countries in the world, much closer to Afghanistan both geographically and culturally that can share the burden of refuge. Which I hope they will.

 

Equally, I'm quite happy for my taxes to go to helping refugees, including hosting them in the UK. Certainly more happy for it to spent on that than a lot of the other things it's spent on. Ultimately we live in a democracy (supposedly anyway) so whoever the majority vote for then whatever they spend our taxes on goes as far as I'm concerned.

[Francis Albert]

25,000  compares to 12,000 "refugees" who have crossed the Channel so far this year, fleeing the horrors of the likes of France (and Italy and other safe countries en route). The Afghans (at least the right ones) look to me  like more deserving candidates.

And Afghanistan is a big country with long borders. Many will succed in fleeing. If not perhaps the Taliban could teach is something about border control (and of course I don't mean using exactly their methods). 

Edited August 18, 2021 by Francis Albert

[Cruyff]

12 hours ago, Ked said:

That seems to be a recurring theme .

 

They know fine and well that the Taliban won't abide by the terms in the Doha agreement and are in fact already in direct contravention of that agreement. 

 

The US knew that tens of thousands of jihadists were already in Afghanistan and more were on route from Syria, Iraq and North Africa. 

 

No one seriously believes that the Taliban are going to expel or fight them and clearly the US has no intention of doing anything about the agreement being broken. 

 

The US must have an ulterior motive. 

[i8hibsh]

2 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

25,000  compares to 12,000 "refugees" who have crossed the Channel so far this year, fleeing the horrors of the likes of France (and Italy and other safe countries en route). The Afghans (at least the right ones) look to me  like more deserving candidates.

And Afghanistan is a big country with long borders. Many will succed in fleeing. If not perhaps the Taliban could teach is something about border control (and of course I don't mean using exactly their methods). 

 

 

Every single refugee that arrives on our shores without documentation for the foreseeable future will be from 'Afghanistan' - it is going to become one massive unmanageable shit show.

[i8hibsh]

And the topic of national security simply must be debated, but it seems it is not even an agenda point.  

[i8hibsh]

To suggest that there will be no 'bad eggs' with 35,000 people coming into the country from polar opposite cultures and with polar opposite ideologies is staggeringly naive.

 

May the blood be on the hands of all those so keen to welcome.

 

 

[manaliveits105]

Bearing in mind the snp clowns think the UK should take 35000 same as USA 

maybe Krankie will offer to put some up in her hoose again 

[i8hibsh]

7 minutes ago, manaliveits105 said:

Bearing in mind the snp clowns think the UK should take 35000 same as USA 

maybe Krankie will offer to put some up in her hoose again 

 

 

She is an absolute genius at the following 2 things:

 

1. Spending other people's money

2. Making herself look good

Edited August 18, 2021 by i8hibsh

[i8hibsh]

Nicola Sturgeon is as far from a ntionalist as one could possibly be.  I am a nationalist by definition, she is a globalist unionist.

 

 

 

[Boab]

29 minutes ago, Cruyff said:

They know fine and well that the Taliban won't abide by the terms in the Doha agreement and are in fact already in direct contravention of that agreement. 

 

The US knew that tens of thousands of jihadists were already in Afghanistan and more were on route from Syria, Iraq and North Africa. 

 

No one seriously believes that the Taliban are going to expel or fight them and clearly the US has no intention of doing anything about the agreement being broken. 

 

The US must have an ulterior motive. 

Well that doesn’t chime with the monkey in a suit’s statement to parliament. The core mission has been a success in clearing jihadists from Afghanistan.

Someone is talking bullshit and I don’t think it’s you !

[Sharpie]

Saw Trump on Hannity last night, he states that when the treaty for withdrawl was negotiated he spoke strongly to the Taliban. He blames Biden for the whole fiasco, a sceptic might think that the Taliban were not intimidated by Trumps threats, nor Americas supposed military threats. After all they fought them all for twenty years and won.

[Maple Leaf]

3 hours ago, i8hibsh said:

Where will they live?

 

Who will pay for them?

 

This shit angres me.  Life really will be free for them.

 

Everything costs money.  From the water we drink, to the toilets we flush, to the bins we fill, to the kids we educate and the health we look after.  

 

We will LITERALLY be funding their entire lives and I for one object to this.

 

I don't go along with the 'we are full' chat as I don't believe we are,  I welcome many immigrants but only if they can offer somehting, share our values and will integrate.  We are 'skint' though - we simply can't afford this.

 

I would not want 1p of my hard earned money going to these refugees.  There is enough of my taxes go to others.  I'm pig sick of it.

 

We are skint!

 

We are approximately 2.5 trillion pounds in debt.

 

To put this into perspective:

 

One million seconds would take up 11 days, 13 hours 46 minutes and 40 seconds.

One billion seconds is a bit over 31 and one-half years

One trillion seconds is slightly over 31,688 years

 

 

 

It's my experience that immigrants and refugees are NOT freeloaders.  The vast majority of them want to get a job, in some cases multiple jobs, so that they can build a new life for themselves and their family.  They're extremely grateful to be here.

 

The situation in the UK might be different, of course, but in Canada many of the menial jobs are filled by newcomers.  The people living on government handouts are more likely to be Canadian-born.

[SE16 3LN]

2 hours ago, Boy Daniel said:

Johnson knows they will never take that many it’s another con by the CONservatives

 😂 You say that based on what? There will be at least 25000, probably a lot more if they can escape the Taliban and get to a "safe" country and on to the UK. There are already 80k people from Afghanistan in the UK. They will all be assimilated in London eventually, along with at least 300000 HK Chinese over the same 5 year period (Chinese community groups estimate 1-2 million). Of course it would be a lot easier if the rUK accepted some responsibility as well, but its easier to sling mud at Westminster than take action. Boris is a *****, but in accepting people escaping persecution, he's walking the walk while others moan and whinge.

[i8hibsh]

1 minute ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

It's my experience that immigrants and refugees are NOT freeloaders.  The vast majority of them want to get a job, in some cases multiple jobs, so that they can build a new life for themselves and their family.  They're extremely grateful to be here.

 

The situation in the UK might be different, of course, but in Canada many of the menial jobs are filled by newcomers.  The people living on government handouts are more likely to be Canadian-born.

 

 

Good to get a reply that actually has a counter opinion on the subject and not just one on me personally like some previous.  Diversity of opinion is a wonderful thing.

 

I don't doubt there will be many success stories, but there will also be many failures, and sadly, I fear some catastrophic and deadly cases.

 

I don't want to take in 35,000 just because there will be some success stories though.

 

 

[Shooter McGavin]

To be fair, I’d rather see taxpayers money go towards accommodating a relatively small amount of refugees into our way of life, than be spunked on new carpets or a coat of paint in Buckingham Palace, or any other ridiculous Royal Family expense.

 

As always, we’ll waste hundreds of millions on such expenses whilst the newspapers tell you that the family down the road who fled a war zone are the problem. 
 

 

Edited August 18, 2021 by Shooter McGavin

[i8hibsh]

For me the safety, welfare and prosperity of all that live on this island must always come first.

[Don Dan]

7 minutes ago, SE16 3LN said:

 😂 You say that based on what? There will be at least 25000, probably a lot more if they can escape the Taliban and get to a "safe" country and on to the UK. There are already 80k people from Afghanistan in the UK. They will all be assimilated in London eventually, along with at least 300000 HK Chinese over the same 5 year period (Chinese community groups estimate 1-2 million). Of course it would be a lot easier if the rUK accepted some responsibility as well, but its easier to sling mud at Westminster than take action. Boris is a *****, but in accepting people escaping persecution, he's walking the walk while others moan and whinge.

Hi number is based on the legal route which will never happen. There are of course unknown numbers boating it in as you say. 

 

1 hour ago, i8hibsh said:

To suggest that there will be no 'bad eggs' with 35,000 people coming into the country from polar opposite cultures and with polar opposite ideologies is staggeringly naive.

 

May the blood be on the hands of all those so keen to welcome.

 

 

Sadly there will always be bad eggs even on a legal route. 

[doctor jambo]

8 minutes ago, i8hibsh said:

For me the safety, welfare and prosperity of all that live on this island must always come first.

Fine, I’d take a hundred thousand immigrants , if we can send some of our home grown wasters in the other direction.

one in, one out .

[i8hibsh]

1 minute ago, Boy Daniel said:

Sadly there will always be bad eggs even on a legal route. 

 

 

Oh for sure yeah, but we have enough of them as it is  - we don't want to open ourselves up to anymore. 

[i8hibsh]

Just now, doctor jambo said:

Fine, I’d take a hundred thousand immigrants , if we can send some of our home grown wasters in the other direction.

one in, one out .

 

 

I'd get on board with that.  Sadly, we are stuck with our bad eggs.

 

 

 

 

[SE16 3LN]

4 minutes ago, windsor1874 said:

If the far-right donuts on kickback are up in arms about the numbers then that's good enough for me! Generally shows you that the policies not too far off. 

Its the Nationalist way.

[Des Lynam]

2 hours ago, i8hibsh said:

There is always a humanitarian crisis, it never ends.  We have to start putting our foot down imo.  Countries need to start taking responsibility for themselves.

Maybe, just maybe we should stop invading countries? 

[i8hibsh]

5 minutes ago, Des Lynam said:

Maybe, just maybe we should stop invading countries? 

 

 

 

Agreed, hardly a UK or US 'thing' tho is it.  Since the dawn of time and to current day countries do this.  

 

Afghanistan are no angels.

[Des Lynam]

2 minutes ago, i8hibsh said:

 

 

 

Agreed, hardly a UK or US 'thing' tho is it.  Since the dawn of time and to current day countries do this.  

 

Afghanistan are no angels.

In fairness they’ve had the Persians, Greeks, Mongols, Sikh Empire, British, Soviets, US and us again having a go. 
 

Who have they invaded? 

 

We would have been better attacking Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. 

[Maple Leaf]

6 minutes ago, Des Lynam said:

 

 

We would have been better attacking Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. 

 

Invading countries is seldom a good idea, but Christian countries (which is how the West is viewed) invading Muslim countries is inviting disaster.

 

By the way, the two countries you mention are Western allies.  There's your laugh of the day.

[i8hibsh]

10 minutes ago, Des Lynam said:

In fairness they’ve had the Persians, Greeks, Mongols, Sikh Empire, British, Soviets, US and us again having a go. 
 

Who have they invaded? 

 

We would have been better attacking Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. 

 

 

I would argue that they WERE part of the Persian Empire.

[Jambo92]

This country (UK and Scotland) wastes so much money on random crap, prawn sandwiches for politicians, I think we should take in humans that need our help. 

I get all the points being made but in the grand scheme of things refugees will cost a fraction of what we piss up the wall every year.

37 billion pounds we have spent on track and trace remember.

[i8hibsh]

4 minutes ago, Jambo92 said:

This country (UK and Scotland) wastes so much money on random crap, prawn sandwiches for politicians, I think we should take in humans that need our help. 

I get all the points being made but in the grand scheme of things refugees will cost a fraction of what we piss up the wall every year.

37 billion pounds we have spent on track and trace remember.

 

 

We have our own, who 'need our help'.

 

Little babies having to fly fo the USA for life saving treatment as we couldn't do it on our NHS.  The parents having to fund raise to try and save their kids life.

 

My priority is at home and wish our governments was also.

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

It's my experience that immigrants and refugees are NOT freeloaders.  The vast majority of them want to get a job, in some cases multiple jobs, so that they can build a new life for themselves and their family.  They're extremely grateful to be here.

 

The situation in the UK might be different, of course, but in Canada many of the menial jobs are filled by newcomers.  The people living on government handouts are more likely to be Canadian-born.

It is no different, in London at least. The restaurant and pub businesses (not to mention the NHS) are very dependent on recent immigrants. The descendents of previous waves of immigration (China, Italy, India) generally perform well at school and being well educated don't want to work where their parents and grandparents did. So Chinese, Indian and Italian resturants are diminishing fast, or have been taken over by East Europeans and Turks, in some cases impersonating the more established cuisines, not always successfully. The building, plumbing and other trades would be even more difficult to find and more expensive but for recent immigration. 

Edited August 18, 2021 by Francis Albert

[i8hibsh]

Can't get a difinitive figure or substantiate fully but I think most will agree with the logic.

 

We currently have approx 60,000 + refugees currently being 'housed' in top rated hotels throughout the UK.  Some have been there for over a year.  We give them 'pocket money' and they live better than hundreds of thousand of UK citizens.  This is all to keep them 'safe' whilst we process their asylum applications.

 

The costs thrown out for this are around 1 billion pounds per year for the entire process.

 

Do you know how many UK lives could be saved every year with this money?

 

So those talking about all the money we waste (which is all true) try broaden your examples.

[Jambo92]

7 minutes ago, i8hibsh said:

 

 

We have our own, who 'need our help'.

 

Little babies having to fly fo the USA for life saving treatment as we couldn't do it on our NHS.  The parents having to fund raise to try and save their kids life.

 

My priority is at home and wish our governments was also.

 

Absolutely agree, but our energy has to be put into holding our leaders accountable for the massive wastes of money every year, rather than at people who are just desperate to live in stable conditions. 

 

 

[SectionDJambo]

I wonder what would have cost less. Not reducing the foreign aid budget for poor countries like Afghanistan, maybe even increasing it, to keep those people now at threat in their own country from feeling the need to flee to another country. Those countries usually includes “global Britain”, a phrase often used to kid the electorate on that Brexit would result in the UK being a big player in international affairs, so that we could puff our collective chests and say how wonderful we are. 
Or having to pay to deal with the thousands of refugees who the UK promised wouldn’t be forgotten for the service that they gave to our armed forces after we invaded their country.

That is if the UK just doesn’t turn it’s back on those Afghan people now it suits us not to be all that “global” after all.

 

[Maple Leaf]

23 minutes ago, jonesy said:

Wins elections, though. And sells arms.

 

It's troubling how accurate that statement is, especially the second sentence.

[Francis Albert]

4 minutes ago, SectionDJambo said:

I wonder what would have cost less. Not reducing the foreign aid budget for poor countries like Afghanistan, maybe even increasing it, to keep those people now at threat in their own country from feeling the need to flee to another country. Those countries usually includes “global Britain”, a phrase often used to kid the electorate on that Brexit would result in the UK being a big player in international affairs, so that we could puff our collective chests and say how wonderful we are. 
Or having to pay to deal with the thousands of refugees who the UK promised wouldn’t be forgotten for the service that they gave to our armed forces after we invaded their country.

That is if the UK just doesn’t turn it’s back on those Afghan people now it suits us not to be all that “global” after all.

d wth 

The reduction in our foreign aid budget has nothing to with people fleeing Afghanistan

[i8hibsh]

12 minutes ago, Jambo92 said:

 

Absolutely agree, but our energy has to be put into holding our leaders accountable for the massive wastes of money every year, rather than at people who are just desperate to live in stable conditions. 

 

 

 

 

After covid, I actually think they no longer give a **** about money.

[doctor jambo]

36 minutes ago, i8hibsh said:

Can't get a difinitive figure or substantiate fully but I think most will agree with the logic.

 

We currently have approx 60,000 + refugees currently being 'housed' in top rated hotels throughout the UK.  Some have been there for over a year.  We give them 'pocket money' and they live better than hundreds of thousand of UK citizens.  This is all to keep them 'safe' whilst we process their asylum applications.

 

The costs thrown out for this are around 1 billion pounds per year for the entire process.

 

Do you know how many UK lives could be saved every year with this money?

 

So those talking about all the money we waste (which is all true) try broaden your examples.

You’re right. Grant them citizenship and let them work……

save a billion and become net contributors as most immigrants are.

[i8hibsh]

5 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

You’re right. Grant them citizenship and let them work……

save a billion and become net contributors as most immigrants are.

 

 

OK, then what about the other hundreds of thousand of applications from all over the world that have went through the right beurocratic process?  Why does turning up at Folkestone in a boat illegally get you special preferential treatment? Surely everyone would just start doing that?

 

'Most' immigrants are far form net contributors for goodness sake.  No one earning under something like £36,000 (or somehting like that) with 2 + kids wether an immigrant or not can be classed as a net contributor.

 

The amount of children immigrants have put pay to any net benefits for most.

Edited August 18, 2021 by i8hibsh

[Footballfirst]

2 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

You’re right. Grant them citizenship and let them work……

save a billion and become net contributors as most immigrants are.

Correct. 

 

Scotland has an aging population (average age 42.1) which means that it needs more younger people to work and pay taxes in order to pay the pensions of the future. (only Wales and the SW of England have older populations in the UK which has an average of 40.4).

 

Being in the EU single market with free movement of labour allowed many young EU citizens to work here, pay taxes and generally help the economy.

 

Brexit has cut off that labour supply so, short of encouraging native Scots to have more children, the labour market needs more immigration, whether that is from Syria, Afghanistan, Hong Kong or elsewhere.

 

 

[i8hibsh]

@doctor jambo I ask yout this

 

When is there enough immigration then?  You want to give out immigration status to every single person who turns up uninvited on our doorstep.

 

We have to cap it every year.  By just allowing every washed up refugee we are losing the opportunity of bringing in a computer specialist from Scandinavia or a doctor form South Korea.

 

The chances of there being anything but a minority of these uninvited refugees being skilled workers are slim.  And don't even get me started on their honourable intentions.

[i8hibsh]

Just now, Footballfirst said:

Correct. 

 

Scotland has an aging population (average age 42.1) which means that it needs more younger people to work and pay taxes in order to pay the pensions of the future. (only Wales and the SW of England have older populations in the UK which has an average of 40.4).

 

Being in the EU single market with free movement of labour allowed many young EU citizens to work here, pay taxes and generally help the economy.

 

Brexit has cut off that labour supply so, short of encouraging native Scots to have more children, the labour market needs more immigration, whether that is from Syria, Afghanistan, Hong Kong or elsewhere.

 

 

 

 

 

Newsflash : Immigrants also age.

[SectionDJambo]

14 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

The reduction in our foreign aid budget has nothing to with people fleeing Afghanistan

The less we as a country spend to try to keep other countries more stable and keep their people feeling secure in their own place, the more chance there is of those people seeking to gain illegal entry in other countries. The UK, for whatever reason, is seen as a place that is desirable to escape to.
Afghanistan is a prime example of western governments creating a situation from their interference in a country’s affairs and not following it through properly to the end. 

The only surprise is that people in the UK are surprised when a lack of proper investment in a country that we have interfered in, results in migrants wishing to leave the mess we have left behind. Britain has a history of leaving a mess behind when it has had involvement in the Middle East.

Our government wants to boast of being a “global” nation because it sounds impressive to those who think we still have influence. Influence comes with positive and successful actions, not just abandoning people to their fate because we have failed miserably to create an environment that those people feel secure and safe enough to live in. If we don’t want to deal fairly with the fallout from our government’s hopeless actions in these countries, we should keep our nose out of their business in the first place.

[Footballfirst]

7 minutes ago, i8hibsh said:

Newsflash : Immigrants also age.

THE FISCAL IMPACT OF IMMIGRATION ON THE UK

European migrants living in the UK contribute £2,300 more to public purse each year than the average adult, suggesting a net contribution of £78,000 to the exchequer over their lifespan in the UK.

In preparation for Brexit, the government asked its Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) to report on the economic and social impacts of EU migrants in the UK. The MAC commissioned Oxford Economics to analyse the fiscal implications of immigration using the most up-to-date data and sophisticated modelling techniques.

The resulting study, The Fiscal Impact of Immigration on the UK, represents the most comprehensive assessment to date of the net contribution that all migrants make to the UK’s public finances.

The study finds that

• The average UK-based migrant from Europe contributed approximately £2,300 more to UK public finances in 2016/17 than the average UK adult. In comparison, each UK born adult contributed £70 less than the average, and each non-European migrant contributed over £800 less than the average.
• The average European migrant arriving in the UK in 2016 will contribute £78,000 more than they take out in public services and benefits over their time spent in the UK (assuming a balanced national budget), and the average non-European migrant will make a positive net contribution of £28,000 while living here. By comparison, the average UK citizen’s net lifetime contribution in this scenario is zero.
• Taken together, this means that the migrants who arrived in 2016 will make a total net positive contribution of £26.9 billion to the UK’s public finances over the entirety of their stay. The value of this to the UK’s public finances is equivalent to putting approximately 5p on income tax rates (across all marginal rate bands) in that year.

[cannonfoda]

1 hour ago, i8hibsh said:

Can't get a difinitive figure or substantiate fully but I think most will agree with the logic.

 

We currently have approx 60,000 + refugees currently being 'housed' in top rated hotels throughout the UK.  Some have been there for over a year.  We give them 'pocket money' and they live better than hundreds of thousand of UK citizens.  This is all to keep them 'safe' whilst we process their asylum applications.

 

The costs thrown out for this are around 1 billion pounds per year for the entire process.

 

Do you know how many UK lives could be saved every year with this money?

 

So those talking about all the money we waste (which is all true) try broaden your examples.

From the .gov website - £39.63 per person per week or 24p per hour.   

 

Not exactly a fortune we're investing in helping those that need help is it.  

[i8hibsh]

1 minute ago, Footballfirst said:

THE FISCAL IMPACT OF IMMIGRATION ON THE UK

European migrants living in the UK contribute £2,300 more to public purse each year than the average adult, suggesting a net contribution of £78,000 to the exchequer over their lifespan in the UK.

In preparation for Brexit, the government asked its Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) to report on the economic and social impacts of EU migrants in the UK. The MAC commissioned Oxford Economics to analyse the fiscal implications of immigration using the most up-to-date data and sophisticated modelling techniques.

The resulting study, The Fiscal Impact of Immigration on the UK, represents the most comprehensive assessment to date of the net contribution that all migrants make to the UK’s public finances.

The study finds that

• The average UK-based migrant from Europe contributed approximately £2,300 more to UK public finances in 2016/17 than the average UK adult. In comparison, each UK born adult contributed £70 less than the average, and each non-European migrant contributed over £800 less than the average.
• The average European migrant arriving in the UK in 2016 will contribute £78,000 more than they take out in public services and benefits over their time spent in the UK (assuming a balanced national budget), and the average non-European migrant will make a positive net contribution of £28,000 while living here. By comparison, the average UK citizen’s net lifetime contribution in this scenario is zero.
• Taken together, this means that the migrants who arrived in 2016 will make a total net positive contribution of £26.9 billion to the UK’s public finances over the entirety of their stay. The value of this to the UK’s public finances is equivalent to putting approximately 5p on income tax rates (across all marginal rate bands) in that year.

 

 

 

How can they say someone arriving in 2016 etc will make x amount over their lives?  It is conjecture.  This is also before they really settle and start families.  Families that are very much on average larger than a native UK citizen.

 

The entire 'study' is based on future conjectural graphs.  It does not take into account how many children they have.

 

I want percentages of income and children spawned.  

 

A European immigrant working in a supermarket for £9 ph has 4 kids.  Then starts working part time.  The 4 kids alone will cost the taxpayer 400K just to educate.  Are you saying they pay this in tax?

 

 

[i8hibsh]

2 minutes ago, cannonfoda said:

From the .gov website - £39.63 per person per week or 24p per hour.   

 

Not exactly a fortune we're investing in helping those that need help is it.  

 

 

What do you mean?  Their pocket money alone is £32.  Are you saying they are housed and fed for £7.63 per week at a 4 star hotel?

 

Throw in the staffing costs from the home office etc.

 

We need to stop this romantic Alice In Wonderland fairytale bullshit.  They are not all in need of help ffs.  A lot of them are playing us.