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?”
LB
What’s not to like about a financial threshold?
1. Non racist.
2. Easy to understand
3. No need of civil servants to come up with points, quotas
4. Deals with the BNP. If you know migrants are paying more than they take out they are a benefit
5. On the level of pay needed, you won’t be claiming benefits or social housing. [Hasn’t stopped Bob Crowe]
On the downsides.
If we pull in GP from the 3rd world they lose. They paid to train and got none of the benefits. More harm there than a gain to us.
Take Bulgaria. Their skilled workers are going to be pulled out leaving the people behind who can’t pay, but still need support. So their economy will collapse.
LB
Your £11.5k figure presumably includes the present cost of servicing existing government debt of all kinds. If not, it’s you who has ignored this cost and not me.
==========
Spending / number of tax payers.
So as I pointed out earlier, it excludes the biggy on the debt side. Pensions. There the issue is the annual increase. It’s not included.
Why introduce a points system? Have a simple do you pay enough tax test.
1. It uses the existing system – the tax system as a check.
End of the year, have you paid enough tax to cover you and your dependents? Yes, you can stay, no you have 6 months to leave or top up. You or your employer can top up.
2. You or your employer has to take out a bond to pay the threshold in tax.
3. If you pay over the threshold, we could even send them a thank you.
It’s simple. It’s clear. It’s not open to political fiddling like a points system.
A quick calculation. Government spend (plus increase in the debts such as pensions) divided by the number of tax payers.
Above the theshold you can stay or come in.
Even the EU argument is bollocks I’m afraid. Let me quote the law.
Freedom of movement of people goods, services and capital. A right isn’t it? Except if you are Cypriot, then we will take your capital and stop you moving it. So its not a right.
You’re conclusion is also in the bollocks camp. The average migrant (man woman and child) is not paying 11.5K in tax.
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.
There are huge number of migrants who do not make a net contribution. Even that doesn’t take into account the collateral damage. Namely high house prices, and lots of people on welfare who should be working.
The public have rumbled the argument. They see first hand what’s going on and the politicians on the left and right are lying.
GO
But in that case we must be talking about benefits claimed by people in work. In which case your rhetorical question – “What profits are they generating?” loses all its force. They might be generating very large profits.
GO
You’re falling back into this narrow view of it being all about the personal financial contribution made by individuals. The point about public services, defence, infrastructure, the legal system etc. is not that every individual teacher, nurse, soldier, roadbuilder, court clerk etc. is making a personal net tax contribution or generating a profit for someone. It’s that these things vastly increase the amount of productive work that can go on in the economy.
On the Starbucks point: broadly speaking, I agree that we shouldn’t be admitting migrants who are unlikely to make a net contribution (taking a broad view of ‘contribution’) – e.g. I have no problem with ‘points systems’ etc. A free market in labour to drive down wages is a right-wing ideal I do not share. However, we must beware of cutting off our nose to spite our face – e.g. if withdrawing from the EU in order to escape the rules on free movement of labour does more harm than good, we shouldn’t do it.
GO
I’m really not following you here. The more they pay the migrant worker, the less profit they have for themselves. Why do they care if he ‘pays his way’ in tax terms or not? Paying that tax themselves is a small price to keep hold of the other 80% (or whatever) of the profits he generates.