Soleron said:
Slimebeast said:
SamuelRSmith said:
Slimebeast said:
SamuelRSmith said:
The only problem I see with that statement is that, actually, immigrants bring more money into this country proportionally than people born here.
Immigrants make up 8-9% of the population, yet they attribute to 10-11% of the total GDP.
|
That's bullshit. Socialists using some twisted statistics for the purpose of defending mass immigration.
For Sweden, immigrants are a very heavy burden, costing between $20-40 billion every year (net cost) for a lil country with a pop of just 9 million people (but you can still hear liberals claim that immigration enriches our culture because it brings Kebabs and stuff). I'm sure it ain't that much different in the UK when it comes to the economical effects of immigration.
|
...
|
...
|
Can we have some academic sources for both of those claims?
Actually, both could be correct if the second isn't taking into account indirect taxation of immigrants via corporation tax. Suppose immigrants cost the government 100 units, pay 80 units in income/sales taxes and 40 units indirectly via corporation tax. Slmebeast would probably claim immigrants cost the government 20 units net, while SRS would claim immigrants net benefit the economy.
|
No, Im not talking about a cost just for the government, im talking about extremely high costs for the economy and society as a whole.
There's tons of sources about the Swedish cost of immigration but in Swedish. Here's an example (used Google translate), it's just an article in a daily newspaper though with a condensed summary of the calculations:
(note: 1 bn = 1 billion Swedish Kronor = rufly $125 million)
http://www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt/artikel_61728.svd
21 Aug 2002
What are the costs of immigration?
Sweden may be considered as belonging to the major immigration countries in the Western world. Sweden competes with France on the fourth place after Australia, Switzerland and Canada. There are reasons to study the economic impact.
Refugee Immigration has become a disguised workers. Not more than ten percent of all who had to stay have had asylum grounds and are therefore refugees. Smugglers has been a leader of abusing the Refugee Convention. Therefore, in Norway and Finland almost ceased to grant asylum.
Even in Sweden, politicians have had a chance to do the traffickers unemployed, but they have not taken it.
Immigrant population of working age rose during the 1990s with 350 000 persons, net of emigration. Since the upturn in the 1997-98 recession, employment has increased by 270 000 by May 2002. The labor market has been more labor forces through immigration than there are jobs.
The parliament has decided that welfare should be jointly and severally funded. When calculating the costs of immigration has this principle been guiding what should be included in a long-term calculus. Immigrants participate in the financing, but that their tax is earmarked.
Sweden granted almost permanent residence permit with immediate access to the Swedish welfare. No waiting period as in many other countries.
To the Parliament should be able to bring an informed debate about priorities must also be the calculation of migration to be complete and not be given a partial nature of the omission of certain costs, which is common in Sweden and the USA.
Immigration costs amounted, according to my calculations in 1999 to 267 billion. The costs are allocated as follows:
1. Key functions of society, 32 bn
2. Government consumption, 123 bn
3. Transfers, 84 bn
4. Loss of income, 28 billion
The basis is essentially the financial statements of municipalities and the state. Key functions of society include the costs of the kingdom central administration and the net interest on public debt. Examples of public consumption is education, healthcare and justice. Transfers to households, for example, a fund, sick pay and pensions, but also some subsidies to state and private organizations. Income losses relate to loss of revenue in the public sector because many working-age immigrants not involved in production.
The cost of immigration amounts to about one quarter of what the entire public sector costs. It is conservatively estimated.
1990 cost of immigration to 100 bn. The strong increase in nine years up to 267 bn is partly because we have a costly welfare, which immigrants take part.
In addition, the increase in immigration, the low employment rate (55 per cent in 2000 for foreign-born, 20-64 years or 45 percent if you measure from 16 years, SCB / RAMS), and increased social costs (crime, illness and early retirement is much higher among Foreign-born than among Swedes, good and RFV). At least 330 000 missing in 2000 work.
Immigration costs increased annually by 11 percent throughout the 1990s. It is almost three times as much as the increase across the public sector, 3.8 percent.
Here emerges a major cause of welfare cases in the rope. The share of GDP was spent on immigration has almost doubled from 7 to 13.5 percent. Immigration costs 18 times more per year than our foreign aid, which the Riksdag usually discuss.
The increased financing requirements have national days solved by raising the tax ratio from 48 to 54 percent, through cuts in welfare and public pensions, and by increased borrowing. Of the total resource increase to the public sector (324 billion over the decade) was used 51 percent to finance migration. If the cost increase had been limited to 3 percent annually instead of 11, would the ratio have been maintained at 48 percent.
In times of shortage of labor migrants has had a significant impact on business development, among other countries through their skills. Bosnians have helped to promote enterprise development in small areas of Småland.
If the employment rate could be increased, it would mean several new billion in state coffers. In research and education cross-border exchanges have been advantageous for Sweden. Many immigrants have by starting their own businesses helped to boost employment.
Yet it is something that is taken for the dynamic effects of immigration should be more significant.
One indication is that 74 percent of the total immigrant population receives services and livelihood by Tax. Immigrants are paying less than 11 percent (117 bn 1999) of the taxes that the government takes in, despite a share of the population of over 20 percent.
It depends, among other things, that their contribution to GDP by immigrants is not more than 57 percent of the average for the whole population. Sweden has a shortage of work and because of the large immigration surplus of labor.
Therefore Sweden should decide on exceptions to the free movement of labor from ten countries of Eastern Europe. It is in immigration policy and not
in integration policies as problem solutions should be sought. One reason why Sweden is in 17th place in the welfare league is the excessively generous immigration policy.
Lars Jansson
Lecturer in Business
1 bn = 1 billion Swedish Kronor = rufly $125 million
