PVV+PvdA

[Henk Elegeert]

REPLY TO: D66 at nic.surfnet.nl

Op 7 september 2009 10:07 schreef Henk Vreekamp (vreekamp at knoware.nl)
het volgende:
> REPLY TO: D66 at nic.surfnet.nl
>
> Democs,
>

> Wat is het geval? Dat rendement is volgens mij - ik zoek even in de gauwigheid - al minstens twee keer onderzocht. [...] Volgens mij moet er dus in economenkringen al lang bekend zijn dat immigranten ons meer kosten dan opbrengen.

http://www.iom-nederland.nl/dsresource?objectid=1469&type=org

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-402607/Four-migrants-economy-back.html
"
Four out of five migrants 'take more from economy than they put back'

By JAMES SLACK

Last updated at 00:01 29 August 2006

migrants

Migrants aren't putting back into the economy what they are taking
out. Click enlarge to see the full, table of migrants' earnings

Four out of five migrants take more from the British economy than they
contribute, a report has warned today.

The analysis demolishes the Government's key claim that migrants pay
more in taxes than they take back in public services.

Instead, a small number of very high earning foreign workers are
masking the fact that 80 per cent of immigrants are taking more out of
the economy than they contribute over their lifetimes.

Only one in five is earning the £27,000 a year required to make a
positive contribution over the course of their lifetime. It means
that, if they settle here, they will cost the taxpayer money.

The report's author, Migrationwatch UK, said it proved the case for
only highly-skilled economic migrants - such as doctors and engineers
- to be allowed to settle in Britain.

It heaps even greater pressure on Home Secretary John Reid to call an
end to Labour's 'open door' migration policy.

Sir Andrew Green, Migrationwatch chairman, said: 'The Government and
its supporters repeatedly trot out favourable looking statistics which
seek to give the impression that immigration in general has a very
positive effect on the UK economy.

?The reality is that immigrants are extremely varied. A minority are
highly skilled and highly paid but a large majority will end up as a
cost to the taxpayer if they settle here permanently.'

The Government calculates adult migrants make-up 10.6 per cent of the
population, but contribute 10.9 per cent of the country's Gross
Domestic Product - its total economic output.

This is the basis for its claim they make a 'small but positive'
contribution to the economy.

But, using the Government's own Labour Force Survey, Migrationwatch
says this calculation fails to show the full picture.

To make a positive contribution to GDP over the course of a person's
lifetime, they must earn £27,000 a year.

This is the equivalent of paying £7,600 a year in income tax and other
taxation, and would cover the costs of healthcare and other public
services into retirement.

Only 20 per cent of migrants achieve this. But, many of those that do
- such as financiers, engineers and NHS consultants - earn large
amounts of money.

This makes it appear that migrants in general are making a positive
contribution to GDP when, in fact, they are only a small minority of
the total number.

Some eight out of ten earn less than £27,000, with a large number -
including many eastern Europeans - on the minimum wage of less than
£10,000 a year.

Britons are in the same position, with eight of ten of those born here
not earning £27,000 and higher earners paying the majority of the tax
bill.

But the difference is that the government can choose which
work-related migrants are allowed to settle in the UK, and therefore
has the option to select only those who will provide a boost to the
economy.

Migrationwatch says that, as a result, only those earning more than
£27,000 - and who are filling a vacancy that cannot be taken by an EU
citizen - should be allowed to settle here by the Government's new
advisory panel on immigration.

The panel, announced by John Reid last month, is to set an 'optimum
level' of economic migration to he UK when it finally meets in two
years' time. Any limit will exclude asylum seekers, and those given
permission to live here for family reasons.

Sir Andrew said: 'To most people the measures we are suggesting are
simple common sense. This research demonstrates once more that there
is no economic case for massive immigration into the UK.

'The Home Secretary is right to say that we need to balance economic
gain against social costs.

'The social costs of the present massive levels of immigration,
including their impact on infrastructure and public services, far
outweigh any possible benefit.'

The Government is powerless to restrict the number of migrants moving
to Britain from within the EU, including eastern Europe. More than
600,000 have flooded in from the former Eastern Bloc since the
controversial expansion of the EU two years ago.

Up to 300,000 Romanians and Bulgarians are expected to follow when
they join next year, unless the Government restricts their right to
work here.

The study will add further fuel to the immigration debate, which has
led to demands from former Labour Ministers to limit the number of new
arrivals.

Ex-Minister Frank Field said that, even without any new arrivals,
there are not enough houses in the UK to adequately house the current
population.

Former Home Office Minister John Denham said that Britain was already
struggling to cope with record levels of immigration and was not ready
for fresh waves.

The Conservatives have called for restrictions on Bulgarians and
Romanians. The Government has hinted limits could be imposed, but is
yet to reach a firm decision.

A Home Office spokesman said it could not comment on the report in
detail, as it had not yet seen it.

But he added the contribution made by migrants to British life could
not be measured simply in terms of economic output.

It added a new points-based entry system for economic migrants would
take into account factors such as salary, and whether an applicant is
highly-skilled.
"
of

http://www.euractiv.com/en/enlargement/uk-split-costs-benefits-immigration/article-160660

"

UK split on costs and benefits of immigration[fr][de]
Published: Thursday 4 January 2007    | Updated: Thursday 11 January 2007

A recent study by a migration NGO has stirred up the debate on the
economic effects of labour migration from eastern Europe suggesting
that gains were only marginal. But the UK government and industry
federations disagree with the finding.

The study by Migrationwatch UK, published on 3 January 2007, argues
that labour immigration from Eastern Europe and other countries
brought little benefit to economic growth. It finds that "the benefit
to each member of the native population of the UK from immigration is
worth about 4 pence a week - or less than the equivalent of a Mars Bar
a month." The document suggests that the costs might even outweigh the
benefits from immigration. It further stipulates that migrant workers
were pressuring wages to lower levels which seem unacceptable to many
unemployed.

Nevertheless, the Labour government stresses that immigration has
largely benefited the UK economy and argue that it had a positive
effect on employment. The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) said
migrant workers brought in valuable skills and filled job vacancies
that UK citizens were unable or unwilling to take on.

A study by the German Ministry for Business and Technology found that
the situation of skills shortage is worsening as more highly skilled
Germans leave the country and fewer immigrants arrive. Germany
continues to apply a “closed-door policy” on labour migrants from
eastern Europe.

Germany, which holds the EU Presidency from 1 January 2007, intends to
promote a European approach to attract skilled workers as part of
reviving the Lisbon Agenda.
"



Henk Elegeert

**********
Dit bericht is verzonden via de informele D66 discussielijst (D66 at nic.surfnet.nl).
Aanmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SUBSCRIBE D66 uwvoornaam uwachternaam
Afmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SIGNOFF D66
Het on-line archief is te vinden op: http://listserv.surfnet.nl/archives/d66.html
**********