Moving Target

I still don't clearly see the benefits directly or indirectly so, and as mkpdavies correctly points out this leaves out of the measurement the 'social' costs.

I see that Migration Watch report that the overall economic effect is presently pretty neutral - and perhaps even slightly negative in impact.

(An A8 worker is one from the 8 recent "Accession" countries to full EU status)

"16. Based on this earnings data the average A8 worker and his/her employer would contribute approximately £2,900 in employment taxes (tax and employee’s and employer’s national insurance contributions). This compares with about £5,500 for the UK employed population. Because most A8 workers are young and have few dependants the benefits and services they receive from the public purse are relatively small. (They are not entitled to unemployment benefits until they have worked in the UK for at least a year). The main attributable costs are health, policing, transport, child benefits, tax credits and education for their children." (The report calculates the costs as being £2750).

17. This would indicate that, based on personal direct taxes, the fiscal contribution of A8 migrant workers is roughly neutral. When indirect taxes and their contribution to corporate taxes are taken into account the position will clearly be more positive. However, no allowance has been made in these calculations for other public services (such as defence or public sector debt interest) on the basis that these costs will not vary directly, and in the short term, with an increased population. Nor has account been taken of any displacement effect on native workers; if migrant workers have replaced British workers their tax contribution does not add to the total tax take but it does add to costs of providing benefits and services.

The above paragraph seems to say that in terms of tax income/expense there has been a small fiscal benefit - but this does not take into account the falling revenue and increased costs as a result of displaced workers - those workers now unemployed. I'm sure that recent figures show that unemployment has risen by 200,000 in the last year.

So as the conclusion of report says "...A8 migrants contribution to the economy as a whole is probably slightly negative."

As I say in a previous post my largely forgotten Economics A Level is of no help (I do however rather oddly recall Keynes theory of liquidity preference :? I knew it would come in handy ).

We have lower labour costs, and a neutral fiscal effect to the economy. My tax burden hasn't fallen and there hasn't been a deflation in prices. The only direct benefit to me appears to be a greater availability of au pairs and part qualified tradesmen. Indirectly the benefits are that profits have increased and therefore share dividends increased. So, big bonuses to the City boys, whom if they're based in London (and not Hong Kong or Zurich or New York) have more to spend on luxury goods - foreign cars and property. The increased corporate tax revenues have been utilised how? Hmmm.

So the real winners are the multinational captains of industry and social engeering middle class politicians.

Robin

The migrant workers also may send the money they have earned here to their own countries.

If you increase the population you also need to spend almost immediately on the infrastucure. The migrant worker would not pay for these costs for years or decades, if at all.

Moving Target

So as you say Robin, even less benefit to the UK.

What are the benefits we're always told about? Have you heard them listed or explained?

Robin

Moving Target,

Just one benefit I can think of ; the immigrants should learn our language and help make it the main language of the world, when they go back. This is negated by official bodies printing forms in every language.

And possibly they take some of our better traits and practices to their own lands.

But on the whole their is no benefit to mass immigration from EU states.

Moving Target

Thank you Robin for confirming I have some sanity remaining. I've heard this line trotted out so often - I thought I was missing the obvious.

People will do any jobs - as long as the price is right. Nothing wrong with that - demand/supply. Funny though isn't that lawyers fees keep on rising - and that with the ever increasing number of lawyers.

Robin

Moving Target,

There is something about this country-snobbery probably-that means it`s almost compulsory for work that is repetative and doesn`t require qualifications to be low paid.
This means a production line can be held up due to lack of workers but the company lawyer (for example) must be given a high wage and company car. If he misses a days work, though, it wouldnt stop a days production.

As £1 here is worth 4 or 5 in Eastern Europe its easy to see the benefits for the migrants to come here. It`s also easy to see that wages can be lowered even further.
The lowering of the wage means less for the British worker to spend in the UK, Quite possibly bringing him down to where he needs social security money to top up his wages.This money will come from taxation.

Its easy for the apologists of mass migration to say that the prices are lowered in the shops because of the new workforce, but if taxes have to be raised to pay for social security benefits and house prices are even higher due to need and lack of space the economic case shows again a negative.

As for the "Polish Plumber"-how often do people need to call out a plumber and how often do they have to pay a mortgage ?

Moving Target

Robin - I think you're spot on.

I've often pondered why the 'worst' jobs in terms of hours of work, physical effort, repetition and sheer effort should be paid so little. I think you're right it comes down to nothing but snobbery.

We couldn't possible have all those graduates of film studies and fine arts getting their hands dirty could we.

I compare this to the law, where I work. Quite frankly on any measurement it is overpaid (not including me unfortunately) particularly when you consider the hopeless quality and ability of most lawyers.

Excellent point in relation to plumbers - how often does a simple householder or tennant need to use one? Unless of course you're a property developer or renovating your property portfolio. This arguement actually reveals quite a bit about whom uses it. The benefits are said to be cheaper plumbers, builders etc. It is quite revealing to see whom the political parties are attempting to appeal to. Us lot, the little people, we can just forget it.