OECD-rapport: "Invandrarna betalar mer till samhället än de får tillbaka"

....
Cookham | June 13 3:50pm | Permalink

...

If you look at the fiscal impact section of the report, their analysis was very limited in scope, looking at direct tax contributions and direct social spending only, and what they found was that low-skilled immigrants do have a negative fiscal impact, with higher unemployment levels and higher propensity to claim welfare benefits. High skill immigration in places like Switzerland or Luxembourg skew the OECD average upward when looking at the overall impact of immigration, but saying that high-skilled immigrants from high-income countries is a benefit is neither surprising nor controversial. Their analysis also ignores the wider impact on unemployment and social spending. When Western countries are bankrupting themselves to boost the incomes of their own native-born low-skilled populations, adding more low-skilled immigrants is nothing but pure folly.

...

And as for "Moreover, in countries where immigrants take out more than they put in, the root cause is more likely to be the result of policies undertaken many years earlier rather than from recent liberalisation of rules that have boosted the percentage of foreign born residents of OECD countries to 12.5 per cent by 2011."

How can you write that with a straight face? The report clearly points out that the fiscal impact of immigration is much more negative in countries where high levels of immigration have persisted longer as immigrant workers start collecting pension benefits. In other words, countries who have experienced recent high levels of low skilled immigration and yet see only slightly negative fiscal consequences (ie Spain) will soon see the same strongly negative fiscal consequences as Germany and France are now seeing if they just wait a few more years.

....