Monday, 17 June 2013

The OECD recently published a report on immigration. Across Europe, journalists have seized on it to claim that immigration has a net positive impact on the finances of their respective countries. Here are some examples of this from Britain and Sweden.

It is interesting that the report is not generally accessible. You have to be an "accredited journalist" before they let you acquire a copy of it for free. However, the preview lets you scroll through the entire report. Although it's not very pleasant, it works and provides some interesting insights.

As the report itself makes clear, estimates of the fiscal impact of immigration can vary tremendously based on the assumptions made, the definitions used and the categories included or excluded. In particular, the effect of the attribution of public expenditure and pensions is crucial. Excluding this generally gives a net positive fiscal impact. (This could be challenged on other grounds but I'll leave that for another time.) Including it yields a a net negative impact.

It is clear that the journalists who have written about this report are deliberately distorting its findings to present the fiscal impact of immigration in the most favourable light. They select the figures showing a calculation that excludes most categories of public expenditure. The report also presents figures that include an estimate of the impact of the immigrant presence on general public expenditure. But the journalists simply ignore this second, more comprehensive set of figures. In other words, they are lying to their readers to promote a pro-immigration political agenda.

The figures below (from the report) shows that the net fiscal impact of immigration is significantly negative for both the UK and Sweden, as well as nearly all other countries. In the UK, it amounts to around negative one quarter per cent of GDP per year, in Sweden more than negative on half. This may sound trivial on a per yearly basis, but the cumulative effects of such small differentials over the course of decades are colossal.

Of course even these figures are limited, and exclude the many other cost burdens associated with immigration such as those related to crime, Jihad and integration.

I'll post more about this OECD report later.


parisclaims said...

They must think we're really stupid. We have 250,000 Somalis infesting the country, the vast majority don't work. The figures for Pakis and Bangladeshis aren't quite as bad, but the majority don't work. Those that do, claim all kinds of benefits to top up their incomes, and the self employed are usually engaged in cash businesses, so they pay no tax, but claim loads of social security. That is apart from the crime and squalor they bring with them. There is no way third world immigration brings benefits to the host nation.

Maria José said...


'Allah will punish you all!': Terror at mosque as worshipers and policeman slashed with machete by 'Taser-proof' madman after row over whether they were praying properly



Blog Archive

Powered by Blogger.

Blog Archive

Total Pageviews