Quote:
Originally Posted by Osem
Well after a brief scan all I've found there is a few HMG fiscal statistics from 1999, the validity of which Migration Watch are challenging if you care to read their article and what it says about the assumptioms made in the Govt's calculations.
So, what's happened since 1999/2000? Mass economic migration from Eastern Europe. The long term fiscal effects of this won't be able to be determined until it is known how many of these people decide to settle here and what happens to the economy thereafter.
|
I've had a cursory glance as well, but what they are actually saying is that population growth in general tends to help the economy by creating more demand (page 10; the baby boom example is quite interesting). It also says that, because migrants tend to be young adults, they are less likely to use public services (i.e. they have already been educated), which plays a large part in them being net contributors). (page 19). Page 18 also gives data on net contributions during 2003/2004 (when on average more was taken out than was paid in, but this was particularly true of the natives)
Edit: figured out how to copy from that article
Quote:
5.2 In 2005 the IPPR updated this work to cover the five-year period from
1999/00 to 2003/4.44 The study presented similar findings in a different way:
immigrants consistently made a higher net annual fiscal contribution than
British born people. During periods when the budget was in surplus,
immigrants made a higher net contribution; when the budget was in deficit
immigrants’ net negative contribution was lower:
• In 1999/00, immigrants net annual fiscal contribution index (NAFI = the
ratio of contributions to consumption of public services) was 1.06, five
points higher than the 1.01 NAFI for those born in the UK.
• In 2003/4, the gap had grown to 11 points as immigrants’ NAFI stood at
0.99, while that for the UK-born was 0.88.
|