The recent UCL study has thrown fuel onto the fire of the immigration debate in Britain. The advocates of mass immigration are already proclaiming victory with regard to the economic benefits, with our Leftist media following suit. I fear that people will look at this issue from now on as clear-cut, all immigration is fantastic spectacle, instead of pursuing reform of our policy to tailor our needs and avoid the negative repercussions, like most countries around the world. In a global sense, Europe is the oddity.
The trouble I have with the reaction to this study is that the middle-class-Guardian-reading-latte-slurping-enlightened have claimed victory on largely false ground. This study has only emboldened their view that all immigration is beneficial and should be supported indiscriminately. The study also found that non-EU immigration has cost a total of £120 billion but this has gone largely unreported and ignored by the pro-immigration lobby.
Despite this debate perhaps being beyond the point of reproach I would like to add a little skepticism into the mix. Statistics and large scale studies can often be misleading and I wouldn’t be surprised in the least if this study is debunked before the week is out.
I don’t remember anybody, myself or UKIP, calling for the closing of our borders completely. The agenda was always a controlled system whereby the Polish engineer can come to Britain, whereas the unskilled down-and-out working on a food production line should face some restrictions.
These two individuals have a profoundly different effect on Britain’s economy and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
The UCL study doesn’t differentiate between the Polish engineer who may earn £70k paying far more taxes then received in state expenditure, than that of a Polish warehouse worker on the minimum wage of £12k. The former responsible for pulling the average up to the supposed £20billion surplus.
I did a little research into the basic economics of unskilled-immigration and compiled the following notes, read into them what you will. At this point I am purely interested in the effect of unskilled immigration on today’s economy excluding unemployment benefits which, granted, EU immigrants are less likely to claim them than British nationals.
A large proportion of our unskilled migrant workers will be earning at or around the minimum wage in Britain.
First we can calculate the minimum wage combined with the standard 37.5 hour work week will total up to £1007.50 per month x12 = a yearly income of £12084
The yearly contribution of said person to the “system” in 2014/2015 would be:
National Insurance- £495
Considering that the yearly contribution of minimum wage earning migrants is only £912 per year, I find it absolutely remarkable that any intelligent professional can claim this group of low-earners pay more in taxes than they receive.
The following list is not exhaustive but is intended to highlight the goodies that unlimited numbers of unskilled European migrants are able to access, to the same extent as British citizens.
For that £912?
-Working Tax Credits are government cash payments intended to top up low wages.
As you can see, even the “perfect” young single and fit migrant has access to £455 of his tax back immediately for the year. Those with a partner are eligible for £2450, putting them at a loss to the taxpayer before considering any other benefit or public service used.
Of course, however, many immigrants will have children and those with families, especially, are entitled to much more under the child tax-credit scheme.
-Each child in Britain costs around at least £4000 per year to educate in our state system, which again, the cost alone would completely eradicate any measly tax contribution.“These are the extremes, but there are still wide variations between funding – secondaries tend to fall between £4,000 and £9,000, primaries between £3,000 and £8,000.” BBC NEWS.
-Pensions will inevitably become a burden as immigrants get older. The state pension currently sits at £113.10 per week. This also excludes the next generation of immigrants we will “need” to look after today’s immigrants in old age.
-It is hard to put an exact figure on costs to the health service as it varies individually from person to person, as I am only including facts in these notes I will not attempt to give an amount. We do know, however, that it can only add to the aforementioned monetary deficits caused by the said migrant.
Of course there are a raft of public services that also benefit the working immigrant; elderly care, subsidised transport such as train and bus networks, translators etc. The biggest component of state spending on the economic migrant, however, remains our in-work welfare state.
Given the obvious burden to the British taxpayer we face two logical options; keep our borders porous and dismantle our welfare state, something that I find hard to imagine, as we as a country are hooked on state spending.
Secondly we could mirror our immigration policy on Canada, New Zealand and Australia by accepting only highly skilled immigrants whom don’t fall into the governments fishing net of state subsidy. By doing so this would increase the supposed £20billion windfall from EU immigration even higher still, cash that we are desperate for due to our dire economy. More importantly it would allow the deservedly positive immigration message to shine through, reclaiming it as an inherently good thing and benefiting those already here.