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
You are misunderstanding the point quite spectacularly..
Of course not every migrant makes a net contribution. I havent claimed that they do and noone, to the best of my knowledge, has argued that they do. Migrants as a whole make a massive net fiscal contribution. Some individuals, of course, do not. But the point is what happens in the aggregate. That is why any individual case is basically irrelevant – it doesnt change the aggregate position.
I am not saying that some migrants make a net contribution therefore individually they all do. I am saying that the fact is that, in the aggregate, migrants make a net contribution. Some give, some take, but the former more than outweighs the latter.
So of course Hamxa doesnt make a net contribution. I never claimed that he did, you just misunderstood my point.
Do migrants on benefits make a net contribution? It depends on the timescale over which you measure. While they are claiming benefits, no they dont. But if they then get a job and make a positive contribution for then next 10 years, they may well might. So it isnt quite as simple as yu would like it to be.
Boston_scoundrel
Except, of course, that some migrants we force onto welfare whether they want to work or not (those seeking asylum).
Boston_scoundrel
You’re wrong. The fact is that the vast majority of new jobs have gone to UK natives. The number of jobs has gone up and most have them, the vast majority of them, have gone to UK natives. Because the number of new jobs has outstripped the rate of migration and the majority of new entrants to the labour market are UK natives.
See, that was quite easy to explain away.
Boston_scoundrel
No, of course not. I have never claimed he did. You have just misunderstood my point.
Boston_scoundrel
Yes, of course they do. That’s obvious. I’ve never claimed otherwise.
But it doesnt change the fact that, in the aggregate, migrants are net contributors to the UK economy. In the aggregate – which does not mean that ever single migrant is a net contributor – just that more are than are not. A relatively simple point.