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
I have never used that logic. I’m afraid you’ve made that up
LB
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.
===============
So why are we accepting the migrants who don’t make a net contribution?
eg. Abu Hamzah.
For the migrants who do make a net contribution, I’m all for them.
Migration is an option. The country can choose to accept or reject.
So accept the factual part, now progress.
So where do you set the boundary. How big a contribution does a migrant have to make to make a net contribution.
You claim that over all they do, so you must know where that boundary is (on average).
TM
Statistics. There is a saying you might do well to learn ‘there are lies, damned lies…and statistics.’ And as for that rag the Daily Mail, I would not use it for toilet paper. The problem I have with the whole immigration debate is that it is an ‘all or nothing’ kind of debate, or ‘you are either for us or against us’ or you are either saint for agreeing with it, or an evil Right wing racist if you don’t! So, only extreme views are heard and moderates like myself with misgivings are dismissed. This is a democracy and there are other voices other than the polarised ones. That’s what is wrong with all politics at the moment.
Boston_scoundrel
And there’s more to sensible analysis of the facts than tired old cliches.
My views aren’t at all extreme. There’s a debate to be had about migration and it’s impacts. I have no problem with that. All I am saying is that it is better on the whole if one’s opinions are based on facts and evidence rather than supposition and assumption
TM
‘There’s a debate to be had about migration and it’s impacts.’ That we can agree on then my friend. There is no real debate on it at all, it is too polarised. It is too black and white and the world is usually infinite shades of grey. I notice that even in Left leaning newspapers like the Daily Mirror most people are also concerned about immigration too. I was the archetypal sort of trendy Lefty too, applauding multi culturalism and immigration. But I am not so sure now. The debate is beyond politics, it is a whole raft of issues that have been sidelined, marginalised or ignored. Yes my friend, we need an OPEN debate on it. I won’t hold my breath waiting for ANY party to open it though, until it gets too big to be ignored, as I think it almost is now. Watch this space…