This is a constant line you put out and you always ignore the answers.

Firstly the statistics that you are quoting from to support your implicit 'immigrants make us richer' are debated.

They are, but usually the debate ends in "well yes, obviously they're a net contributor given they were educated in another country and may well return there later in life when their care needs are greater".

People who are concerned about immigration often cite "common sense". I'd say there's no more obvious example of common sense than the conclusion that immigrants are statistically likely to pay more in tax than they take out.

Secondly and more importantly saying that immigrants pay slightly more tax.....And if I remember correctly it is only slightly ....Saying that completely ignores the costs of providing for these people.

It doesn't ignore the costs of providing for these people, the costs are part of the calculation. Imagine Manuel comes over here and pays £10,000/year in taxation and only uses £9,000 state-provided services and benefits, for example. He is a net contributor. His £10,000 not only pays for the provision of the services that he uses, it pays for (part of) someone else's services too.

If these immigrants were all earning loads of money and paying large tax amounts and feeding their spare cash back into the economy (instead of a lot of them sending it home) then there would be some sense in your answer.

They feed a lot of it into the economy, that's unavoidable. They've got to pay for accommodation here and they're not going to pop back to their original country every time they want a bit of grub, or a telly or whatever.

If the "sending money home" examples had a deflationary effect upon the economy you'd have areas rich in immigrants seeing lower economic growth. No evidence of that happening that I've seen/heard about.

As it is.....Immigrants increase job competition for British workers and lower wages in some sectors.

Perhaps, but I wouldn't say competition in your job is a bad thing and obviously the best way to create jobs is to have people who put money into the economy and who pay more taxes than they take in services. As immigration increases, so does employment. Look at the last 60 years or so in the UK, for example.

Housing low paid immigrants takes away possible housing for British residents and the lack of supply increases the rent or price... The fact that the state needs to build many many new houses for our significantly increasing population puts your 'immigrants pay more tax' line into almost comic relief.

Hopefully you're beginning to see a pattern in my argument at this stage. The immigrants are net contributors to the state, so those who are net beneficiaries by having their housing subsidised are more than funded by other immigrants who are net contributors.

Whether the state needs to build more houses is of course another debate, but it's not really a debate worth having unless you can calculate the costs of building the new housing and the financial surplus to the state that the immigrants generate.

If there are 26 million houses that 4 people on average can stay in, that's capacity for over 100 million people to live. I'd argue if we can house 35 million more people than we have in the country and struggle to even house those we have, that's a wider problem with the way the economy/state is structured, not a problem with the number of people who need to be housed.

The cost of bigger populations emerging too quickly with their required infrastructure far outweighs the debatable extra income you refer to.

Percentage increase in the population (per decade) over the last century:

1901 38,237,000 385,000 1.01%
1911 42,082,000 195,000 0.46%
1921 44,027,000 201,000 0.46%
1931 46,038,000 213,000 0.46%
1951 50,225,000 258,000 0.51%
1961 52,807,000 312,000 0.59%
1971 55,928,000 42,000 0.08%
1981 56,357,000 108,000 0.19%
1991 57,439,000 161,000 0.28%
2001 59,113,000 167,400 0.28%
2011 63,700,000 458,700 0.72%

The average rate of increase in GDP (the size of the economy itself) over that period was about 1.4%, so since the period between 1900 and 1910, the growth of the economy has been more than twice the rate of the growth of the population for the last century.

Not only this, but government spending as a percentage of GDP has risen from about 15% early in the last century to about 45% today, so government spending has essentially been growing approximately 6 times as fast as population.

Well, I don't say they are obviously a net contributor like you do. There are studies different from the one you consistently choose to cite as if it's unquestionable truth.

I don't believe the proper costs are apart of the calculation.

As for your example I don't know how many immigrants you know who are approximately on thirty plus grand but I'd wager it's a small minority.

Rather obviously they feed less into the economy than workers who don't send money out of the country.

It is just ridiculous for you to even suggest that this unknowable calculation could be ascertained with the economy. Like much in economics it actually comes down to how you interpret.

Really....You don't mind competition for your job?....What a callous thing to say. We have tons of people looking for jobs.....Large competition for low skilled or semi skilled.....Forced upon zero hour contracts because of no choice and Horsey here thinks it's a good thing. Some Labour man you are......I hope you have lots of competition for your next job mate, I'm sure you'll welcome it.

Yeah, I'm most definitely noticing a pattern.....Your head stuck firmly in the sand.

The figures you quote are theoretical and no doubt include private property that the state has absolutely no power to affect....The cost to the state to house today is significant...Head in the clouds stuff.

You waffling on about how the state could be structured rather than how it is and will continue to be structured and hence affect the most vulnerable is typical.

Personally I don't see how those statistics support your side of the argument.

Increased public spending has many fathers......But population growth at least can't lie.

Before Labour open the borders immigration was a minor topic in this country......Statistics and well as common sense informs that it is far more significant now.

Your glorious trotting out of lists of statistics would definitely make me cream myself, WH, but I already knocked one out earlier over a picture of the former Serbian warlord Ratko Mladic.

We were skint after the war..Your statistics aren't an actual reflection of this country's financial state.....This country had food rationing until July 1954. .We were on food rations in WW1 as well from 17 to 20.

I repeat the money coming in to rebuild a lot of our infrastructure was American money....The NHS was on the never never.....In reality it always has been.

I have work to do so I just don't have time to go over your previous post. What I will say is your projection of a growth being suffice to cope with our population increase is economically illiterate in my view.