Who was right?: 576% rise in number of NI numbers handed to Romania/Bulgaria

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-for-work.html

Immigration: 576% rise in poorest Europeans registering for work/benefits

Official figures show 187,370 Romanians and Bulgarians were given National Insurance numbers over the course of 2014 after immigration rules were relaxed, up from 27,700 during the previous year

Widely mocked: Ukip's warnings of a surge in numbers were mocked at the time but have been proven correct

Seven times as many migrants from the poorest countries in Europe registered to work in Britain after immigration rules were relaxed last year. Official figures showed 187,370 Romanians and Bulgarians were given National Insurance numbers over the course of 2014, up from 27,700 during the previous year.

This represented a 576 per cent increase in the numbers of migrants from the two most deprived countries in the European Union who registered to work or receive state benefits in the space of just 12 months.

Romanians and Bulgarians now make up a quarter of all new NI numbers allocated to foreigners, the Department for Work and Pensions said. Experts said the figures suggested that many of these immigrants had been in Britain for months or even years, working illegally “in the shadows”.

http://order-order.com/2015/03/08/ne...es-dan-hodges/

New Ukip video teases Dan Hodges, a journalist who claimed the party were racist and scaremongering over predictions

Jobs that pay “cash-in-hand”, such as construction or cleaning, will have enabled them to support themselves while not paying full taxes, it was claimed. The figures prompted warnings that the sudden increase in the number of eastern Europeans registering for work could make it harder for British people to find jobs.

A National Insurance number is a legal requirement for anyone wanting to work as an employee, or to claim state benefits and tax credits.
The dramatic rise followed the lifting of restrictions on the kinds of work Romanians and Bulgarians could do in the UK, a controversial change which took effect on January 1, 2014. Under “transitional” rules introduced when Romania and Bulgaria joined the EU in 2007, migrants from these two countries could only work in the UK in seasonal jobs such as fruit picking, or if they were self-employed.

These restrictions ended on January 1 last year and all Romanians and Bulgarians were then given the same rights to work in the UK as British citizens. MPs and academics said that the “huge” rise in NI numbers issued last year showed Britain’s borders had not been properly controlled.

Experts at Oxford University said many Romanians and Bulgarians may have moved to Britain while the restrictions were still in place and claimed they were self-employed but were in fact working as employees on building projects or in other “cash-in-hand” jobs, without formal contracts. Then, once the restrictions were lifted last year, they registered for NI numbers so they could work legally as employees.

Carlos Vargas-Silva, an economist at Oxford’s Migration Observatory, said: “These figures give the impression that many of these people were here already doing something but we don’t know what that something was. There is a possibility that many of these people were in that informal economy without the proper permits to work.”

Keith Vaz, chairman of Parliament’s Home Affairs Select Committee, said the “huge” rise showed migrants who were already working had “come out of the shadows” when the restrictions were lifted. “It is clear that the 1st January last year provided people with the opportunity for the first time of working legally. Romanians and Bulgarians who were working in the black market and in the shadows had to obtain National Insurance numbers in order to become employees,” he said. “There is still a massive problem in tracking and monitoring people who come over.”

Nigel Mills, the Conservative MP for Amber Valley who led a campaign to extend the employment restrictions on Romanians and Bulgarians, said voters feared a sudden increase in legally registered workers would make it harder for British people to find employment.

“Nobody objects to having people come here when we need the skills. But equally we can’t just have unlimited numbers of unskilled people turning up looking for work. We have still got a lot of people out there who need jobs. It’s not sustainable,” he said.

Well done to Farage, Ukip, Migration Watch and all those who rightly predicted a surge in the numbers. And these numbers are just NI.

Boo hoo to the liars in the media, BBC comedians, Dan Hodges and the politicians like Keith Vaz MP who mocked us. You filthy liars.

You can read the ONS document here before anybody tries to dispute the figures again with the source for the 187,000 number:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/407501/NINo_Analytical_Report_Feb15.pdf

Thoughts?

[FlyingJesus]

Finally a source for the 187,000 figure although considering there were only 37,000 arrivals in that time what this figure actually means is that ~150,000 people who weren't previously working (or at least not a legal, tax paying job) now will be. This is NOT 187,000 people coming in to the country and "taking" jobs who were previously not here, this is a huge success for the private sector who are now better equipped to employ people who were already around and wanting to work but not able to legally do so before. It's a drop of 187,000 in non tax-paying immigrants

[-:Undertaker:-]

The British people want immigration tightened, and here's the recent polls I read on Twitter that apparently prove it. Although it's nothing new.

YouGov: What should next government do on immigration?

Reduce - 76%
Keep Same - 14%
Increase - 4%
Don't Know - 6%

YouGov: Which party has best policies on immigration?

UKIP - 28%
None of them - 27%
Don't Know -14%
CON - 11%
LAB - 11%
Lib Dem - 4%

Below Tom goes on about how many of these people work. That's true. But the point is, the numbers coming in place a huge strain on hospitals, social services, schools, welfare and housing - as well as wages and jobs. Nobody is against people coming here to work, provided we need them (the job cannot be filled by British workers at all) and that they have the skills. At the moment, this isn't the case and it is a free for all. Unacceptable.

Finally a source for the 187,000 figure although considering there were only 37,000 arrivals in that time what this figure actually means is that ~150,000 people who weren't previously working (or at least not a legal, tax paying job) now will be. This is NOT 187,000 people coming in to the country and "taking" jobs who were previously not here, this is a huge success for the private sector who are now better equipped to employ people who were already around and wanting to work but not able to legally do so before.

I knew somebody would be able to twist this into a "Well this is good isn't it?" when they were wrong to begin with when they said that the numbers would be small yet they were completely, 100% wrong just as they were wrong over the 2004 estimates regarding Poland etc.

But let's get onto the 'success' bit. Whilst many may be working, they are undercutting British wages which, if British employers are struggling to find Britons to fill the positions (something I don't actually believe as often as it is repeated) they should be increasing wages to match inflation so that those jobs are attractive to British workers. Instead however, to maximise their profits, they're importing unskilled workers in the hundreds and thousands to purposely avoid paying more for British workers. That isn't a good deal for the people here, it is a rotten deal.

And that's without saying the figure will probably be well over 200,000 when you take into account beggars and criminal gangs.

It's a drop of 187,000 in non tax-paying immigrants

So if 2m immigrants came in tomorrow and paid tax that would be a drop in non tax-paying immigrants? What a warped way to look at the world.

[Firehorse]

Finally a source for the 187,000 figure although considering there were only 37,000 arrivals in that time what this figure actually means is that ~150,000 people who weren't previously working (or at least not a legal, tax paying job) now will be. This is NOT 187,000 people coming in to the country and "taking" jobs who were previously not here, this is a huge success for the private sector who are now better equipped to employ people who were already around and wanting to work but not able to legally do so before. It's a drop of 187,000 in non tax-paying immigrants

Sorry, but can you please provide a source for this figure of 37,000 arrivals? I'd be very interested to know since the official figures for 2014 won't actually be published by the ONS until May.

I'd also be interested to know your reasoning behind there being a drop in non tax-paying immigrants. How did you come to that conclusion? You're making an assumption that almost every single Romanian and Bulgarian who was already here was working illegally? What is your source?

Also, these are registrations for NIN's, it does not mean that they are all employed as you like to believe. To receive JSA you need a NIN. And, to pay income tax you need to be on an income which cannot be obtained from only doing unskilled agency work. So your comment about a drop in the number of non tax-paying immigrants is completely unfounded. The only discernible difference is that by having a NIN they can now claim benefits, and you cannot make any other claims until the real statistics are published.

[FlyingJesus]

37,000 comes from Dan's past thread on this issue, and the drop in non tax-paying immigrants I wrote wrong, should have been in the same part as the ~150k bit sorry. But yeah essentially what we're seeing is people trying to become British workers, not hundreds of thousands of benefits rats or whatever. I don't support bringing in unnecessary extras for no apparent reason, I support a decrease in illegal employment and people being dealt with outside of the system, so I see mass registration as (potential) UK workers as being a good thing when the alternative is them being here only on short-term non-essential work and then disappearing into the ether as has been the case previously.

[Firehorse]

37,000 comes from Dan's past thread on this issue, and the drop in non tax-paying immigrants I wrote wrong, should have been in the same part as the ~150k bit sorry. But yeah essentially what we're seeing is people trying to become British workers, not hundreds of thousands of benefits rats or whatever. I don't support bringing in unnecessary extras for no apparent reason, I support a decrease in illegal employment and people being dealt with outside of the system, so I see mass registration as (potential) UK workers as being a good thing when the alternative is them being here only on short-term non-essential work and then disappearing into the ether as has been the case previously.

You still cannot use the 37,000 arrivals statistic in your argument the way you did:

1. The NIN registration statistic is official for the 12 months to December 2014
2. The arrivals statistic was an estimate
3. The arrivals statistic was for a different timeframe, only up until September 2014, and is therefore incomplete. The official estimate for 2014 in its entirety won't be published until May.

Using the estimated arrivals statistic without stating it does not cover a different timeframe only aims to deliberately mislead the reader.

Do you not find it alarming that ~20 years ago the entire net migration figure was similar to the figure now attributed to a single nationality of migrants?

Do we have more hospitals than we had 20 years ago? No. If anything we have less.
More A&E facilities? No, A&E's are even being closed.
More GP's? No.
More police? No.
More school places? No.
Increase in reservoir capacity? No. Water is having to be processed from the Thames for the first time in history because the reservoirs cannot cope with the demand.
Has the number of homes risen in line with the rise in population? Far from it, and this is the single biggest money spinner of the entire con being played by politicians.

Tell me one aspect of uncontrolled immigration which is sustainable.

People keep on claiming that more immigration is good for the economy. Rubbish. Answer me this, if we have so many more taxpayers then where is all this tax going if the provision of public services has not increased? The only sector that benefits is big business and they're doing it under your nose.

[FlyingJesus]

You still cannot use the 37,000 arrivals statistic in your argument the way you did:

1. The NIN registration statistic is official for the 12 months to December 2014
2. The arrivals statistic was an estimate
3. The arrivals statistic was for a different timeframe, only up until September 2014, and is therefore incomplete. The official estimate for 2014 in its entirety won't be published until May.

Using the estimated arrivals statistic without stating it does not cover a different timeframe only aims to deliberately mislead the reader.

Again, I was just going by what Dan showed. Not my fault if he gives us uncoordinated stats and makes readings from them

Do you not find it alarming that ~20 years ago the entire net migration figure was similar to the figure now attributed to a single nationality of migrants?

Nope

Also your signature ends exactly the way I expected it ... to.

[Firehorse]

Again, I was just going by what Dan showed. Not my fault if he gives us uncoordinated stats and makes readings from them


Nope

Also your signature ends exactly the way I expected it ... to.

Well you didn't, because Dan's post very clearly stated:

in the year to September 2014

And fair enough that's your opinion if you are not at all concerned by the unpredictable and unsustainable increase in population.

Referring to my signature is completely irrelevant to the topic.

Are you unable to answer my two other questions? You've avoided them, much like a politician.

[FlyingJesus]

I didn't what? You haven't actually written anything here. You can't just say "you didn't" when there's nothing that I've claimed I did... you're not making a cohesive argument so I have no idea how to respond here. Ask me questions and I'll respond to them but quoting my whole post and saying NO without referring to any specific part of it won't get us anywhere.

Only see one other question not two but do feel free to ask more if you want. So ok -
Answer me this, if we have so many more taxpayers then where is all this tax going if the provision of public services has not increased?
You are equating bricks with services. If you want an extra police station for every X amount like on a computer game then go ahead and play a computer game. Things cost money to run. Things with more people cost more money to run. You're also somehow assuming that big business is ...not part of the economy?



As to your signature, I only brought it up because it was there and it was wrong and I was bored. Lighten up

[Firehorse]

I didn't what? You haven't actually written anything here. You can't just say "you didn't" when there's nothing that I've claimed I did... you're not making a cohesive argument so I have no idea how to respond here. Ask me questions and I'll respond to them but quoting my whole post and saying NO without referring to any specific part of it won't get us anywhere.

Only see one other question not two but do feel free to ask more if you want. So ok -
Answer me this, if we have so many more taxpayers then where is all this tax going if the provision of public services has not increased?
You are equating bricks with services. If you want an extra police station for every X amount like on a computer game then go ahead and play a computer game. Things cost money to run. Things with more people cost more money to run. You're also somehow assuming that big business is ...not part of the economy?



As to your signature, I only brought it up because it was there and it was wrong and I was bored. Lighten up

I answered your points in the same order that you wrote them. There were three lines in your post and mine was very clearly formatted. I'm sorry you had trouble comprehending my post.

To answer your response to my question: I am not disputing that more services cost more to run, that actually backs up the point I am making. If we have more people paying tax, then we have more money to spend on services, which we in turn need to serve the larger population. Your answer doesn't actually make much sense either, because you're answering as if I've claimed that the population pays a lump sum of tax and then walks away. The money you speak of comes from tax as a cash flow and is then spent on the services as required, also as a cash flow. If you have an increase in the tax income but no change in the amount spent then this equates to an income surplus.

Big business is part of the economy, but when referring to big business as being the main recipient of economic benefits, it is the shareholders who are being referred to. The people working for big business have had their wages suppressed by the large surplus in workers, which means that big business has the benefit of being able to pay less to its workers and keep more money for itself. It benefits a small group of individuals, while the majority of society lose out on money which would have been spread more widely among the community.

TLDR: Great for employers, bad for employees.

I find it unbelievable that people like you defend these practices. Surely you are no millionaire yourself? Or maybe you are sadomasochistic when it comes to finance?

The other thing I asked was the following:

Tell me one aspect of uncontrolled immigration which is sustainable.