So London economist Ian Preston says, we ought to give some
serious thought to the consequences of immigration on public finance;
Research suggests that there is no simple and general answer,
applicable in all circumstances, to the size and direction of the effect
of immigration in this respect (Preston 2014). Immigrants contribute
through payment of taxes at the same time as they draw on public
finances through consumption of publicly provided goods and services.
Immigrants differ from native-born residents in demographic type, in
skills and in social customs and consequently both groups pay different
taxes and impose differently on public services.
Obvious, you'd think, but it's amazing how few economists actually think this way.
...to the extent that migration is economically driven and that the
economic rewards are affected by tax rates and entitlements to benefits
in cash or in kind from public spending, there is potential for the
composition of the immigrant population itself to be affected by the
nature of public sector finances.
There is no way to answer the
question of whether immigration affects the public exchequer of any
particular country positively or negatively except by careful and
comprehensive accounting. Pointing to particular visible burdens or
contributions while ignoring less visible counterbalances is not
helpful.
Our bold just above, because that's a useful way of thinking that goes well beyond immigration.
No comments:
Post a Comment