Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Argus

Immigrants cost Canada $30 billion per year

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

It’s where the left is dipping into fascist bans on freedom of religion.  We’re seeing it in Quebec.

The CAQ who banned religious apparel for government employees, teachers in Quebec is a nationalistic right-wing party.   

A right-wing party was in power in France when their niqab ban went into effect.

Left wing govs who have banned the burka are often doing so as a result if pressure from Nationalist right wing parties eg: Geert Wilders in the Netherlands.

These fascist bans seem to driven by the right, not the left.

Edited by dialamah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I will grant you that progressives should be more open to discussing 'immigration'.

What is there to discuss? I thought we had this all figured out decades ago.  That said I'm pretty concerned about the new reality that robots will reduce the numbers of jobs humans will have to compete for in the future.  I'd like to triple immigration to ensure we have as many humans as possible when the time comes to revolt against the robots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

What is there to discuss? I thought we had this all figured out decades ago.  

Immigration?  That's something that changes with the political economy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I will grant you that progressives should be more open to discussing 'immigration'.  But an open investigation of economic realities should be a factual discussion, not a witch hunt.  If we can agree that there is no place for 'blame' in such a discussion then I think we could start.  

I have, for some time, advocated a macro approach to studying what immigration has done thus far, and what it is capable of doing in future. Many if not most of the claims for what immigration is or can do are simply false and have no evidence behind them. And I doubt we'll ever get such a study from anything but an actual conservative government because the other side shrinks from recognizing the realities.

Fact: immigrants have both more economic success, and are more likely to integrate when they have a better grasp of the language here. Australia shows that. Their immigrants outperform ours now that they've tightened language requirements.

Fact: immigrants from source countries with cultures and values more similar to ours will cause less disruption, less social upheaval, and will integrate much faster, as well as having better economic success. The goverment's own studies have shown as much.

Fact: Immigration is going to have very little impact on an aging population. But what impact it can have requires a focus on bringing in younger immigrants, not elderly ones.

Opinion: The actual ideal immigrants would be a college educated couple in their 20s from the UK, Ireland or the US (or France if going to Quebec).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, marcus said:

Infrastructure needs to be updated all the time. It's inevitable. It's not a bad thing. Infrastructure is one of the top job creating areas in most countries.

Then we ought to be importing tradesmen. We're not.

21 hours ago, marcus said:

Baby boomers are retiring at a much higher rate than we're having children. There are two outcomes:

1) Baby boomers are no longer doing the jobs they were doing and there is a smaller percentage taking their places. This is why we have so much need for skilled workers. This is not some bs conspiracy - it's the truth.

No, it's actually bullshit. There is no evidence we have a labour shortage except in small, specific areas. Nor is immigration going to do much, if anything, for our aging workforce.

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-alas-immigration-wont-replace-canadas-aging-workforce

21 hours ago, marcus said:

2) When more taxpayers retire than people taking their spots, it means that we have less people paying taxes.

This too is, of course, bullshit. People retiring don't stop being taxpayers.

21 hours ago, marcus said:

Until we have automation and more robots that can take the place of humans to do work, we need replacements for people who are retiring or dying.

We've got them. We have no shortage of workers and none is foreseen in the near future. There, happy?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/budget-watchdog-finds-little-evidence-of-labour-skills-shortages-1.2585468

21 hours ago, marcus said:

Majority of the immigrants that are coming into Canada are coming through the skilled worker programs.

No, the majority are coming in through the family unification program. Only 17% of those who come to Canada are skilled workers tested for skills, language, etc.

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/bissett-immigration-policy-is-out-of-control-and-needs-an-overhaul

21 hours ago, marcus said:

These are people who are under 35, with savings and most importantly, with skills that we need.

And what about the ones who are in their 40s, 50s, and 70s who have little savings and skills that aren't really very adaptable here?

I live in one of the most diverse cities in Canada: Vancouver. I've also lived in Regina, one of the least diverse cities. At least it used to be. I can tell you that Vancouver is a much better place to live. Personally, I love seeing new cultures. New food. New stores. New energy.

Good for you. Many people however, like Canada and Canadians, and don't revel in living surrounded by foreigners. For people like you who do, might I suggest going and living somewhere else, since you clearly have no attachment to this place?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

You don't understand the fundamentals of growth and prosperity and how it creates jobs and wealth.  Yes it is the need for new infrastructure that simulates growth and creates jobs and yes new immigrants are the engine for that.

All immigration creates is a larger GDP. It creates jobs but it supplies workers for those jobs. Thus there is no improvement to those already here. If you have two turkeys instead of one at the table, but twice as many to eat it then you have no more food than you used to. You're just more crowded.

Canada’s traditionally high immigration rates actually cut many unpredictable ways. The more than 300,000 immigrants and 700,000 temporary migrants recently arriving in the country help expand the overall economic pie. But to most economists that doesn’t mean much.

Economists, instead, mine data to discover whether average wages rise or fall because of migration, which types of migrants do best, whether a foreign education or offshore work translates to Canadian success and how much it matters to be proficient in English or French.

Designing immigration policies mainly to boost the GDP “makes little sense,” Green says. That is, unless you’re a business owner who wants a bigger market for your product (such as real estate or automobiles) and more choice in who you can hire.

Here’s a second lesson from economists: When it comes to what really matters for most Canadians — per capita wages — Green explains the impact of immigration is over time “very close to zero.”

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-immigration-may-lift-economy-but-not-peoples-wages-plus-other-economists-lessons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/20/2019 at 5:33 PM, Argus said:

A new study done by the Fraser Institute shows the fiscal burden imposed on Canadians from its high immigration rate is now up to $30 billion  per year. That is because immigrants have lower wages and thus pay less tax than other Canadians, while making use of more government resources. They also have a higher unemployment rate and, on average, more children, so receive more in benefits.

Estimating the fiscal burden immigrants impose on Canadians requires data on the average taxes paid and government benefits received by immigrants. Data from the 2016 Census also cited by Gatehouse shows that the average income of recent immigrants aged 25-54 continues to fall short of that of non-immigrants, which means they continue to pay less in taxes on average.

In our most recent study we used basic statistics from the previous census and the National Household Survey to estimate that because of Canada’s progressive income tax system, recent immigrants paid much lower income taxes than non-immigrants. We added to this amount other taxes related to income and wealth, such as the GST and capital gains taxes, and concluded that in 2008-09, recent immigrants on average paid $13,100 in tax compared with $18,000 paid by other Canadians, yielding a shortfall of $4,900 per year.

https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/setting-the-record-straight-on-the-benefits-and-heavy-costs-of-immigration-to-canada

I just want to review the bizarre illogic used by these authors:

1) Immigrants (5.7m 1985 to present) earn less, on average, than other Canadians, so they pay $4,900 less income tax on average ($13,100) than other Canadians ($18,000), referred to as a "shortfall" of $4,900 pp. (Calculated @2009 rates) 

2) According to the authors, immigrants thus cause a (5.7m x $4,900 ~$28b) ~ "$30b shortfall" per year in income tax revenues for Canada. 

???!!!  Actually, no.

Those 5.7m immigrants since 1985 actually add (5.7m x $13,100) + $75b per year to Canada's income tax revenues. 

See the faulty logic? If those 5.7m immigrants were not here, they would be contributing 0 to Canada's income tax revenues. Instead, we get $75b per year. 

In the final paragraph, the authors essentially suggest that immigration should stop, because it causes overcrowding (homes, schools, roads), and a revenue "shortfall" ... which is ridiculous nonsense: Adding $75b/year to Canada's revenues is in no way a "shortfall". 

I can't imagine what the Financial Post is thinking, publishing crappy  xenophobic propaganda like this.  

Edited by jacee
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Argus said:

All immigration creates is a larger GDP. It creates jobs but it supplies workers for those jobs. Thus there is no improvement to those already here. If you have two turkeys instead of one at the table, but twice as many to eat it then you have no more food than you used to. You're just more crowded.

Canada’s traditionally high immigration rates actually cut many unpredictable ways. The more than 300,000 immigrants and 700,000 temporary migrants recently arriving in the country help expand the overall economic pie. But to most economists that doesn’t mean much.

Economists, instead, mine data to discover whether average wages rise or fall because of migration, which types of migrants do best, whether a foreign education or offshore work translates to Canadian success and how much it matters to be proficient in English or French.

Designing immigration policies mainly to boost the GDP “makes little sense,” Green says. That is, unless you’re a business owner who wants a bigger market for your product (such as real estate or automobiles) and more choice in who you can hire.

Here’s a second lesson from economists: When it comes to what really matters for most Canadians — per capita wages — Green explains the impact of immigration is over time “very close to zero.”

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-immigration-may-lift-economy-but-not-peoples-wages-plus-other-economists-lessons

You failed to response to the statement made before that there has been significant improvements to the economic conditions of Canadians born here since 80's and 90's because of (or in your view in spite of) 10 million new arrivals since then into Canada. Wages are much higher, purchase power significantly improved, unemployment rate significantly lower and the economy much improved. Instead you attack a link or two likely articles by anti-immigrant groups that shows new immigrants are slower in catching up with those born here and that too is true. It takes time t adjust to new country and catch up.

You also failed to respond to the estimate figures stated before in my post that even if allegedly immigrants cost 30 billions to Canadians annually those who arrived even if HALF pay an average income taxes then they contribute 60 billion annually just from direct income tax twice what you claim the cost of new immigrants allegedly is,  hiding the fact that new immigrants in long term will become tax payers too in turn.

I am myself not unconditionally pro-immigrant however, my fear is mostly the cultural conflict and that is why I am advocating lower level of immigration with adaptability and potential of positive contributions to Canada (education, assets) as the main criteria. We should not stop immigration all together but cut it down and be more selective, A lot more selective.

Edited by CITIZEN_2015

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

You failed to response to the statement made before that there has been significant improvements to the economic conditions of Canadians born here since 80's and 90's because of (or in your view in spite of) 10 million new arrivals since then into Canada. Wages are much higher, purchase power significantly improved, unemployment rate significantly lower and the economy much improved.

I invite you to provide evidence to support any and all of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Argus said:

I invite you to provide evidence to support any and all of that.

Those who were struggling to find a job or buy a house or pay for essentials in the 80's and 90's and now able to do so are the evidence (millions of Canadians). But if you wish statistical evidence then in 1983, unemployment rate was 12% and now is less than half.  GDP per capita improved since then from $13000 in 1983 to over $52000 in 2019 (FOUR times higher), house ownership is way up since 80's. Confidence in economy is way up since both 80's and 90's and many other statistics and all these because of (in spite of) millions of new arrivals.

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_enCA807CA807&ei=mfBrXc7uHdLn_Qa7y7TICQ&q=gdp+per+capita+canada+1983&oq=gdp+per+capita+canada+1983&gs_l=psy-ab.3..35i39.196937.200554..201586...0.2..0.124.739.6j2......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j0j0i22i30j0i22i10i30.GGOTrAZ7HvQ&ved=0ahUKEwiOn4jAhLDkAhXSc98KHbslDZkQ4dUDCAo&uact=5

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_enCA807CA807&ei=E_BrXeL3GaSb_QbOupfYCQ&q=gdp+per+capita+canada+2019&oq=gdp+per+capita+canada+2019&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0.127616.131394..132432...0.2..0.115.819.3j5......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j35i39j0i22i30j0i22i10i30.MrKJhUjTMFI&ved=0ahUKEwiizZGAhLDkAhWkTd8KHU7dBZsQ4dUDCAo&uact=5

Edited by CITIZEN_2015

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not all immigrants to Canada are muslims. Namely, it was in the newas that the sicko who murdered a 2-year old boy in Liverpool 26 years ago is about to be released and he will be moved to Canada with a new identity. Well, he was himself 10 years old at the time as if that is somehow alleviating.

Why does Canada accept him? Surely not the UK has the right just to transfer him into Canada without asking Canada first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The threshold for housing affordability is 30% or less of income spent on housing.  In Toronto in 2019 the median earner spends 79% of income on housing.  In Vancouver it’s 88% of income.  Only the top 2.5 percent of earners can afford to buy a home in Vancouver.  Affordability has been in decline for decades, but especially in the last two.

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi7oKuOjLDkAhWQmOAKHZi2B20QzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbc.ca%2Fnews%2Fbusiness%2Fhouse-prices-affordability-income-1.4966211&psig=AOvVaw3-WXVBsnBvr7OEZ3cc0Sa_&ust=1567443476697027

It’s also important to note (and it’s one of the main reasons for the rise in protectionist populism) that real wages in Canada and the US have stagnated since the 70’s.  The article from Policy Alternatives (link below) points to the decline of unions (from about 20% of companies in the 80’s to 10% in the US today), as well as trade globalization, which has made products cheaper but driven down wages   “Lars Osberg’s recent research shows that since 1980 the bottom half of Canadian workers have seen their real earnings shrink!”

https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/march-2019/populism-rises-look-fallen-wages/

There has been a decoupling of wages from productivity since the 70’s.

So what to do about it?  Trump is using the stick of tariffs and the carrot of access to the US market to protect US businesses, but we are seeing uneven results, as it is hurting supply chains and having unintended negative consequences on US manufacturing, let alone the cost of living.  It’s caused a messy trade war with too many fronts.   It would be much easier to rebalance trade with strong enforcement of global trade rules, but the populists are suspicious of global organizations and appeal to nativist nationalist sentiment.

We also see how legislation like Right to Work has lowered wages by weakening unions and causing states to compete on lower wages rather than quality and value add.

Immigration in some ways grows the pie because more people are producing and paying taxes, but government services are costly and immigrants tend to flock to the major cities, which helps drive up housing costs.  That’s why we need some form of geography-targeted immigration to better distribute settlement, develop the north, make remote communities more economically viable, protect the environment, and put less strain on city infrastructure and services.

 

 

Edited by Zeitgeist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

...immigrants tend to flock to the major cities, which helps drive up housing costs.  That’s why we need some form of geography-targeted immigration to better distribute settlement, develop the north, make remote communities more economically viable, protect the environment, and put less strain on city infrastructure and services.

Why target immigrants?

Why not "distribute" other Canadians to northern, remote communities? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, dialamah said:

The CAQ who banned religious apparel for government employees, teachers in Quebec is a nationalistic right-wing party.   

A right-wing party was in power in France when their niqab ban went into effect.

Left wing govs who have banned the burka are often doing so as a result if pressure from Nationalist right wing parties eg: Geert Wilders in the Netherlands.

These fascist bans seem to driven by the right, not the left.

Not really.  The CAQ are also shutting down pipelines and Energy East.  France has always been sympathetic to communists.  I remember the regular Aeroflot service to Paris long before it existed in the rest of Western Europe.  Quebec is adopting France’s blueprint on secularism.  Make no mistake, this is suppression of religious freedom.  Quebec had to use the notwithstanding clause to push it through.  

Edited by Zeitgeist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, jacee said:

Why target immigrants?

Why not "distribute" other Canadians to northern, remote communities? 

Someone who hasn’t immigrated to Canada but wants to become a Canadian citizen can be required to do a number of things to obtain that citizenship.  Canada is under no obligation to them.  Once full citizenship is granted, so are all the same rights and freedoms that every Canadian has, but it’s for Canadians to set the terms of acquiring that citizenship, which can include a residency restriction for a set period.  For example, each province would have the right to restrict a portion of the province from settlement for applicants in this particular immigration category until they achieve full citizenship.  Such a category of immigration could perhaps be for lower skilled applicants who wouldn’t otherwise have a way in.  Over time the percentage of immigrants who enter through this category could be increased or reduced based on settlement patterns and economic conditions.  It would basically have geographic restrictions of say, 3-5 years.  

Edited by Zeitgeist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

Someone who hasn’t immigrated to Canada but wants to become a Canadian citizen can be required to do a number of things to obtain that citizenship.  

You are targeting immigrants (that is soon to be Canadian citizens ) and imposing a condition to come here and accept to become second class citizens. I think that i says enough. How about adding other conditions like if they open restaurants then they have to serve food to Canadians for free? Or if they work for the government or private sector they should accept to earn half the wage Canadians earn or work twice as much to have continued employment? Or have to pay twice as much in taxes, Or have to pay twice when buying a house or always should give way to Canadians when driving? Really!!!!!!!!

Edited by CITIZEN_2015

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Such a category of immigration could perhaps be for lower skilled applicants who wouldn’t otherwise have a way in

It would also provide economic opportunity for services that assist immigrants, often with goverment grants, creating even more employment in economically depressed areas.  Win-win. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

You are targeting immigrants (that is soon to be Canadian citizens ) and imposing a condition to come here and accept to become second class citizens. I think that says it all about you.

Why are people in northern and remote communities second class citizens?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

You are targeting immigrants (that is soon to be Canadian citizens ) and imposing a condition to come here and accept to become second class citizens. I think that says it all about you.

I disagree actually.  Canada offered free land to people to come here and settle, but they had to take the land in certain places.  Currently, there are smaller communities in Canada that are dying for lack of people, and some of them do see immigrants as a way to improve their situation.  

Edited by dialamah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

Why are people in northern and remote communities second class citizens?

No but they have chosen to live there. It is their choice and their right to choose. But when a citizen is forced to move there as a condition after citizenship then they don't have equal rights with the other 98% of population who have chosen other places to live.

Edited by CITIZEN_2015

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dialamah said:

I disagree actually.  Canada offered free land to people to come here and settle, but they had to take the land in certain places.  Currently, there are smaller communities in Canada that are dying for lack of people, and some of them do see immigrants as a way to improve their situation.  

So you are providing 300,000 jobs every year in northern and remote areas for new immigrants right? Doctors, engineers, skilled workers, investors, teachers, nurses, etc. Or do you suggest that they just move there and be on social assistance programs forever just to increase population of those areas? And then people will complain immigrants are using our social programs intended for Canadians!!!.

Edited by CITIZEN_2015

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

No but they have chosen to live there. It is their choice and their right to choose. But when a citizen is forced to move there as a condition after citizenship then they don't have equal rights with the other 99% of population who have chosen other places to live.

It would not be a condition of citizenship.  The post I read spoke about restricting areas available to those from particular immigration category until they achieve full citizenship.  One would assume that after that they can choose to go wherever they want.

So immigration to a northern or remote community would be a condition of entry for landed immigrant status.  Ask them if that's okay with them.  When I emigrated to Canada I would have literally gone anywhere they said, as long as there were job opportunities. 

Edited by bcsapper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

 

So immigration to a northern or remote community would be a condition of entry for landed immigrant status.  Ask them if that's okay with them.  When I emigrated to Canada I would have literally gone anywhere they said, as long as there were job opportunities. 

You did not answer my question. Are you going to create 300,000 jobs per years for doctors, engineers, school and hospital workers, l and workers of other types in those tiny remote areas with small population? Are there enough schools for immigrant teachers or hospitals for immigrant nurses or restaurants for immigrant workers or construction activities for immigrant construction workers? Or you are going to put them on social assistant programs for 3 years when they will become unemployed until they get their citizenship three years later?

Edited by CITIZEN_2015

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

It’s also important to note (and it’s one of the main reasons for the rise in protectionist populism) that real wages in Canada and the US have stagnated since the 70’s. 

 

Can't speak for Canada, but this often repeated statement is not true for the U.S.

Real U.S. wage growth has ebbed and flowed at different times over the past 50 years.

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/06/are-wages-rising-or-flat/

Also, it is a common mistake to project American data on Canadian circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Those who were struggling to find a job or buy a house or pay for essentials in the 80's and 90's and now able to do so are the evidence (millions of Canadians). But if you wish statistical evidence then in 1983, unemployment rate was 12% and now is less than half.  

That is not evidence of anything other than that Canada was in a deep recession at that time. The recession was world-wide, and had nothing to do with immigration, nor did it's resolution. Comparing an economy in the midst of a deep recession with stagflation to one not in recession is simply disingenuous nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...