Contrary to what David Cameron would have you believe, benefit tourism just isn't a significant problem.
In a sop to UKIP, David Cameron has pledged to bar migrants from claiming out-of-work benefits for three months after their arrival to the UK.
The measure is supposed to put off ‘would-be benefit tourists’ from coming to Britain.
What David Cameron probably won’t tell you, however, is that migrants from Eastern Europe are less likely to claim benefits than indiginous Britons.
Most migrants from the EU do not come to Britain to sign on, but to work. Migrants who came to the UK after the year 2000 have made a ‘substantial’ contribution to public finances, according to a recent study by University College London.
Those from the European Economic Area (EEA – the EU plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) made a particularly strong contribution in the decade up to 2011, contributing 34 per cent more in taxes than they received in benefits, the study found.
Other data backs this up.
In 2008-09, at the height of Labour’s policy of so-called ‘uncontrolled immigration’, A8 immigrants paid 37 per cent more in direct or indirect taxes than they received in public goods and services.
A8 immigrants contributed 0.96 per cent of total tax receipts and accounted for only 0.6 per cent of total expenditures (see table).
And before someone makes a boring argument about Britain’s benefit system being ‘the most generous in Europe’, that isn’t true either. A study by the Economic and Social Research Council’s Centre for Population Change (CPC) carried out last year found that the UK had below average levels of welfare spending among developed nations. (See graph).
There is no reason to view Britain as any more attractive to benefit tourists than other EU countries, and no reason to view the latest ‘crackdown’ on ‘welfare tourism’ as anything other than an attempt to shore up the right-wing vote.
Benefit tourism just isn’t a significant problem.
45 Responses to “We repeat, migrants are *less* likely to claim benefits than indigenous Britons”
Boston_scoundrel
It’s a NET fiscal contribution – that is, they put in much more than they take out (unlike the average of the native UK population, which are net takers).
I didnt quote a think tank – I quoted an academic source (the clue is in the name: University College London)
TM
Yes this may be true, and there are many benefits we have accrued because of immigration, but the basic premise all seem to forget is that it is now essentially about cheap unlicensed labour that means more profits for the affluent and a lack of jobs for millions unemployed here. Of course, if you are wealthy or one of those affluent Middle class Lefties it won’t affect you will it??!!
Boston_scoundrel
That’s simply not true. Ignoring Daily Express headlines (not noted for their accuracy) proper academic studies have shown that the displacement effect at the lower end of the labour market – which is what you are referring to – is pretty small. About 1 in 13 jobs held by a migrant worker displaces one which could be done by a UK native. The really worrying issue is with high skill, high value jobs where something like 20% of jobs are held by non-native employees, because UK schools and universities aren’t producing young people with the right skills. Without the immigration you are worried about, those employers would pack up and go somewhere else. The issue you should early get your arse in your hands about isn’t immigration, it’s the woeful state of British education.
TM
OK, that’s a fair point and you engaged with me lucidly and intelligently. But the fact is that a lot of immigration is about cheap labour ultimately. The perception, whether right or wrong, is that many work in jobs that should be better paid so that people here could do them and not be ruthlessly exploited.
Incidentally, where do you get your stats from? Another problem I have is people dismissing an argument because they say it’s false and misleading, but then everyone and his dog can do that can’t they if they disagree with an opinion? Most realities, harsh ones, involve some kind of economics at their core, and immigration seems to be about exploitation and getting away with paying low wages to people who see those wages as high. It’s not rocket science mate!
TM
Yes. That is rather contradictory isn’t it? I guess he won’t feel the need to answer but do what they all do, issue statements from on high. That’s why most politics is a game played by the affluent.