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.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
45 Responses to “We repeat, migrants are *less* likely to claim benefits than indigenous Britons”
Boston_scoundrel
The point is that the perception is wrong. The 1 in 13 figure comes from the Government’s Migration Advisory Committee, from work they did on the economic implications of immigration, published 18 months or so ago. The 20% figure comes from the Office for National Statistics.
Immigration may seem to be about cheap labour and driving down wages. But the reality is that it isnt. The problem is that people form a view on the basis of perception, or headlines in the Daily Mail, and dont bother to investigate the real facts…
LB
Tell us again why we need any migrants on benefits?
Look at the cost.
Bugger all in tax.
Lots of paying money out.
If you want migrants like that, there’s a simple test. You personally sponsor them and pay out of your pocket.
LB
How does a migrant on welfare make a net fiscal contribution?
They don’t.
Now look at how much a migrant needs to pay in tax to make a net contribution. The government spends 11.5K a year per person. You need to be on 44K a year to break even. Each and every migrant. And that ignores the pensions.
So the Cream report from UCL is bonkers. No numbers as to earnings. Huge numbers are not earning 44K a year and so are not making a net contribution.
They are paying a few quid in tax, and getting all their services for free, paid for by other people.
e.g
1. Abu Hamzah – benefit claimant.
2. Abrambovich.
Hamzah isn’t making a net contribution is he? He cost over a million and paid no tax. Why are you trying to claim Abu Hamzah is good for the UK?
LB
They don’t.
How does Abu Hamzah make a net contribution?
How does the 29% on welfare make a net contribution?
LB
Put up a reference. The growth in the number of employed and the growth in the number of migrants shows where the jobs are going.
If you haven’t noticed, there has been an increase in employement, increase in migration, and bugger all decrease in unemployment.
ie. There is a huge displacement going on.