The Quiet Man is turning up the volume. We wish he wouldn't.
IDS has an op-ed in the Times (£) today in which he promises to take on the people who wish to come to Britain “simply because of our benefits”.
“Freedom of movement must be about work – it was never meant to assist benefit tourism,” the tough-cum-quiet man writes.
It’s fairly clear what Mr Duncan Smith and the Tories are trying to do here. In talking up the problem of benefit tourism, the Conservatives are trying to outflank UKIP from the right. Because the government is relatively restricted as to what it can do to control EU migration to Britain – freedom of movement and all that – the Tory party likes to make out that benefit tourism is a significant problem.
That way it can pretend to be doing something – anything – about immigration.
In reality, however, in singling out so-called benefit tourism IDS may as well be wasting his breath, for the number of people who travel to the UK to claim benefits is statistically insignificant.
According to a Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) report from 2011, 6.4 per cent of those claiming working aged benefits were non-uk nationals, meaning British nationals were two-and-a-half times more likely to be claiming working age benefits than non-UK nationals.
This graph from Fullfact demonstrates a similar trend right across the board.
In every category UK nationals are more likely to claim benefits than foreign migrants.
“Of the 2 million net migrants to the UK from the eight eastern European countries that joined the EU in 2004, just 13,000 people have claimed jobseeker’s allowance (JSA). This figure was not disputed by No 10.” The Guardian, March 26 2013
It just isn’t that easy to be a benefit tourist. Something called the habitual residence test, which was introduced in 1994 by John Major’s government, means that before being allowed to claim any benefits in the UK immigrants are interviewed about their reasons for entering the country, how long they have been here, as well as their work status and history.
As a rule a person would need to have been in Britain for at least one to three months before they are able to claim any kind of benefit.
There is always the possibility that someone could come to the UK, spend all their money during the first month or so before parking themselves on benefits. However considering the government’s rhetoric around welfare reform – that it is ‘getting tough’ with those whose ‘curtains are still drawn at midday’ – this seems unlikely. If British nationals can no longer ‘languish’ on benefits, where is the evidence to suggest that foreign nationals will find it any easier to do so?
In sum, today’s op-ed by IDS is pure hot air. The Quiet Man is turning up the volume. We wish he wouldn’t.
63 Responses to “Iain Duncan Smith says he’s going to stop benefit tourism. What benefit tourism?”
GO
“You’re conclusion is also in the bollocks camp. The average migrant (man woman and child) is not paying 11.5K in tax.”
So what? The average migrant is not using 11.5k of services and benefits either. And as I keep pointing out, a migrant worker’s contribution to the economy is not limited to the personal tax he pays.
“You’ve just extrapolated from making a contribution, which starts at a pound in tax, and gone on from there to claim they make a net contribution. That’s complete bollocks.”
It certainly would be, but I never did it. Of course there are plenty of people who don’t make a net contribution in any given year, or even during their whole time in the UK.
Anyway – that’s enough of that, I think. Too many parallel conversations going on.
LB
In the case of the NHS workers, there are no profits.
In the case of Starbucks, we can look at the tax paid by Starbucks, and its bugger all.
If they generate profits, then as I’ve said, the employer can pay them enough to cover the tax, or make up the shortfall.,
If they are generating the profits, the employer will pay. If they aren’t they won’t.
It’s very simple. That’s why the tax test is the one that is clearest and the cheapest.
So what if they don’t generate a profit to cover the cost? Can we get them to leave and in the case of new migrants prevent them coming in?
At what level do you set the threshold to make sure they are a net benefit?
ade
Lowering the size of the population would not mean more employment, the link is not that obvious. Everyone pays taxes, rule, drink, Vat? Strengthen the Trade Unions would help get wages back up
Timmy2much
Agreed, lowering the population size will not mean more employment – it will mean less unemployment. Some jobs will be lost from those servicing the benefits system but this loss will be less than the reduction in unemployment (ie 1 job lost for every 30 unemployed removed) . Plus jobs will be created by the additional money in peoples pockets and/or increased government spend elsewhere.
The taxes paid by those on benefits is given back to them as benefits so they can pay taxes on their next purchases. So those on benefits do not help with the tax burden.
[FYI – the assumption is that those incentivised to leave will open up job positions]
treborc1
The biggest group of people claiming benefits to day are those in work, the dam scroungers.