Are you a contributer or a sponge

mkpdavies · 29-08-2006, 12:27 PM

http://www.ukip.org/ukip_news/gen12.php?t=1&id=2477

Quote:

But, using the Government's own Labour Force Survey, Migrationwatch says this calculation fails to show the full picture.

To make a positive contribution to GDP over the course of a person's lifetime, they must earn £27,000 a year.

This is the equivalent of paying £7,600 a year in income tax and other taxation, and would cover the costs of healthcare and other public services into retirement.

Is this not a shocking figure? Can it be right?

John Page · 29-08-2006, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Is this not a shocking figure? Can it be right?

It does look a bit on the low side, doesn't it.

harryaldridge · 29-08-2006, 01:21 PM

The figures from Migration Watch are pretty back-of-envelope stuff. See how they arrive at the figures here http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/Brie...nt_workers.asp

They only count Income Tax and National Insurance contributions.

Surely they need to calculate the difference between economic benefit for the worker (their salary), and their net of tax pay. This includes all direct taxes.

e.g. taxes on £27k income:

(£27k - £5k allowance - £2k starting rate) * (basic rate + NI rate (33%)) = £6,600

+

£2k * (starting rate + NI rate (21%) - £420

+

Employers NI - (£27k - £5k) * 12.8% = £2,816

This suggetss a worker on £27kpa. contributes £9,836 in direct tax

The actual salary needed to contribute the taxes stated by Migration Watch is about £22,000

mkpdavies · 29-08-2006, 01:24 PM

Which is still pretty high IMHO.

harryaldridge · 29-08-2006, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

Which is still pretty high IMHO.

Yes i totally agree. Thank God for Migration Watch. These figures are shocking. Simply saying that they are not as precise as they suggest.

For example they take old trasury figures for revenue and spending that project forward, they divide up amongst a rough estimate of workers, add 10% to allow for incresed infrastrucutre spending and divide up again to arrive salary in 2003/4. Then they uprate at 4% pa. in line with average wage growth.

They could be far more accurate and look at the wage growth in specific sectors where migrants are known to work for example. Or take more recent revenue/spending figures.

eublues · 29-08-2006, 07:42 PM

...and children of immigrants, and non-working dependents, are certainly taking more out than they are putting in.

A small amount of immigration is possibly advantageous to the economy (like a lubricant in an engine, to use an analogy I heard some Tory say on the radio a few days ago).

But this small amount should certainly not exceed the level of emigration - and preferably be much less than that.

C_steam · 29-08-2006, 08:34 PM

Anyway, even if immigrants make a net contribution - so what?

is continued economic 'growth' sustainable or in fact desirable?

I think the whole argument that we need continued economic growth is pretty poor in view of the situation of the world and resources.

Net zero growth, or even negative growth (shrinkage) in line with net zero population change or decline is more desirable, IMHO.

The only 'excuse' for the need for continuing economic growth is to pay for future expense - i.e. pensions, or to cover national debt incurred.

Robin · 29-08-2006, 09:21 PM

Economic activity isnt a good thing in itself.A calamity that affects a country,like a war,can increase activity but its no great benefit.

A village might be quiet and restful because it has no economic activity.A town street at 2.30am doesnt need economic activity.

Ireland has more economic activity than 15 years ago but they dont seem as relaxed now.

Economic activity is good if it is for the benefit of the citizens of a country,not for league tables.

29-08-2006, 01:24 PM	#4 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,615	Which is still pretty high IMHO. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

29-08-2006, 01:21 PM	#3 (permalink)
harryaldridge Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: West Sussex Posts: 1,870	The figures from Migration Watch are pretty back-of-envelope stuff. See how they arrive at the figures here http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/Brie...nt_workers.asp They only count Income Tax and National Insurance contributions. Surely they need to calculate the difference between economic benefit for the worker (their salary), and their net of tax pay. This includes all direct taxes. e.g. taxes on £27k income: (£27k - £5k allowance - £2k starting rate) * (basic rate + NI rate (33%)) = £6,600 + £2k * (starting rate + NI rate (21%) - £420 + Employers NI - (£27k - £5k) * 12.8% = £2,816 This suggetss a worker on £27kpa. contributes £9,836 in direct tax The actual salary needed to contribute the taxes stated by Migration Watch is about £22,000

29-08-2006, 07:42 PM	#6 (permalink)
eublues Uber Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 2,925	...and children of immigrants, and non-working dependents, are certainly taking more out than they are putting in. A small amount of immigration is possibly advantageous to the economy (like a lubricant in an engine, to use an analogy I heard some Tory say on the radio a few days ago). But this small amount should certainly not exceed the level of emigration - and preferably be much less than that.

29-08-2006, 08:34 PM	#7 (permalink)
C_steam Super Moderator Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Anwhere far away from the cabalistas Posts: 7,170	Anyway, even if immigrants make a net contribution - so what? is continued economic 'growth' sustainable or in fact desirable? I think the whole argument that we need continued economic growth is pretty poor in view of the situation of the world and resources. Net zero growth, or even negative growth (shrinkage) in line with net zero population change or decline is more desirable, IMHO. The only 'excuse' for the need for continuing economic growth is to pay for future expense - i.e. pensions, or to cover national debt incurred.

29-08-2006, 09:21 PM	#8 (permalink)
Robin Senior Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 757	Economic activity isnt a good thing in itself.A calamity that affects a country,like a war,can increase activity but its no great benefit. A village might be quiet and restful because it has no economic activity.A town street at 2.30am doesnt need economic activity. Ireland has more economic activity than 15 years ago but they dont seem as relaxed now. Economic activity is good if it is for the benefit of the citizens of a country,not for league tables.