Friday 23 March 2012

E vina emigrantilor (!)

Recent immigrants not faring as well as those who arrived before 1987, costing taxpayers more than $16 billion annually
Media Contacts:
Patrick Grady
Herbert Grubel
Release Date: March 15, 2012
VANCOUVER, BC—Immigrants who arrived in Canada between 1987 and 2004 received about $6,000 more in government services per immigrant in 2005 than they paid in taxes, confirms a new report released today by the Fraser Institute, Canada’s leading public policy think-tank.

“Immigrants arriving in Canada since 1987 are not doing as well economically as immigrants who arrived before 1987,” said Herbert Grubel, Fraser Institute senior fellow and co-author of Fiscal Transfers to Immigrants in Canada: Responding to Critics and a Revised Estimate.

“As a result of Canada’s welfare-state policies, our progressive income taxes, and universal social programs, these immigrants impose a huge fiscal burden on Canadian taxpayers of between $16 billion and $23 billion annually.”

The report is an update of a 2011 study by Grubel and co-author Patrick Grady which used publicly available data to estimate that, in 2005, Canada’s immigrant selection policies resulted in an average fiscal burden on taxpayers of $6,051 per immigrant who came to Canada between 1987 and 2004, and that the average income of those immigrants was 72 per cent of that of other Canadians.

The study is also a response to research sponsored by the government-funded Metropolis BC Project and carried out by Simon Fraser University economists Mohsen Javdani and Krishna Pendakur who examined the incomes of immigrants who arrived in Canada between 1970 and 2004. They concluded that over this period, immigrants received only $450 more in government services than they paid in taxes and that immigrants’ average incomes were 89 per cent of that of other Canadians.

“The main reason for the disparity is that our study looked at immigration data from 1987 to 2004, while Javdani and Pendakur went as far back as 1970,” Grubel said.

“According to Statistics Canada, immigrants to Canada pre-1987 had much higher incomes, and thus made higher tax payments, than those who arrived later. Javdani and Pendakur found significantly reduced transfers because these immigrants were more economically successful than the later cohort.”

Javdani and Pendakur justified their use of data from this period by claiming that the 1987 to 2004 cohort measured by Grubel and Grady underestimated the true earnings of immigrants since those individuals were younger.

“Newly available research from Statistics Canada shows that the income gap between recent immigrants and other Canadians has been increasing, regardless of gender, education, work experience and, importantly, age,” Grady said.

“In other words, the lower incomes and tax payments of recent immigrants relative to those of other Canadians are likely to persist over all stages of their lives, which invalidates Javdani and Pendakur’s criticism of our estimates.”

Grubel and Grady also reject arguments that immigrants are needed to meet labour shortages, that they bring productivity-increasing economies of scale, and that their children will repay the fiscal burden. New evidence does not provide any grounds for optimism that the children of recent immigrants are going to be able to earn enough to compensate current and future generations of Canadians for the fiscal transfers made to their parents by existing Canadians.

Grubel and Grady conclude that in order to alleviate the fiscal strain on taxpayers, Canada’s immigration selection process should be reformed to emphasize a reliance on market forces to replace the existing, failed system of using points to select immigrants. They also present new evidence suggesting that Federal Skilled Worker immigrants who were admitted on the basis of pre-arranged employment offers had much higher incomes than comparable immigrants admitted under previously existing criteria.

“The exclusive use of such job offers would result in a significant decrease, if not elimination, of the fiscal burden that exists under the present immigrant selection system,” Grubel said.

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/news/display.aspx?id=18104

Atentie, Schumi la volan (adica eu)!

Sa va povestesc despre cum mi-am luat eu carnetul de sofer in Canada din doua incercari. Desi aveam carnet de sofer cu vechime de 10 ani in Romania, nu condusesem nici macar 200 km acolo. Intotdeauna mi-a fost teama de condus, mai ales ca stilul romanesc de condus impune sa ai niste abilitati deosebite. Ei bine, eu nu am aceste abilitati si pentru mine masina personala putea sa nu se inventeze. Un motiv sa nu mai poluam planeta :).
Ajunsi aici, hai sa dau si eu examenul. Cel teoretic nu se pune, ca ala e usor, nu acolo e problema. Dupa vreo 15-20 de ore de "scoala", ca nici eu nu le mai stiu numarul, ma trezesc si eu sa dau examenul pentru G2 in februarie anul trecut, cand nu se topise zapada de pe strada. La sfatul instructorului, am programat examenul in afara orasului, la alt centru, unde cica e mai usor si nu e asa trafic. Ei bine, eu cand conduc, trebuie sa stiu traseul, sa il vizualizez, altfel nu ma urc in masina. Instructorul ma linistise, ca o sa mergem mai devreme si o sa facem traseul. Zis si facut.Ajungem noi mai devreme, facem traseul, dar credeti ca mai eram atenta la ce imi spunea el? De unde! Eram ca in transa, ca la un examen cand ai impresia ca nu mai stii nimic. Numai ca eu chiar nu stiam nimic, ca totul era nou. Degeaba mi-a spus el sa fiu atenta ca banda aia e pentru stanga, eu acolo m-am dus chiar daca examinatoarea mi-a zis sa o iau inainte.
Deabia plecasem pe traseu, facusem o parcare exemplara si trebuia sa merg inainte cand mi-a facut observatie ca banda e de stanga si ea mi-a zis sa merg inainte. Imi venea sa o intreb daca mai are rost sa continui, dar am mers mai departe si in final m-a picat din cauza asta.
A doua oara era sa o zbarcesc tot la inceput, ca asa sunt eu, imi dau in stamba imediat. De data asta m-am dus aproape, in oras,si am avut timp sa fac traseul de vreo 2 ori, asa ca sa se obisnuiasca ochiul cu peisajul si semnele din zona. Deci, plec eu cu examinatorul, un mosulet chinez pe care de-abia il intelegeam ce imi zice, si cand dau sa ies din parcare in strada mare, fortez sa prind semaforul pe galben. Chinezul imi zice ca trebuia sa nu plec, ca puteam sa astept. Iarasi am injurat in gand ca am plecat cu stangul si ma intrebam daca mai are rost sa merg mai departe. In fine, pe traseu a fost onorabil, doar ca la intoarcere, dau sa intru in aceeasi parcare, eu linistita ca aveam prioritate, trebuia sa fac stanga, altul care avea stop si venea din fata mea nu opreste la stop. Chinezului ii pica fata, eu apas frana, cel care venea opreste si el ca si-a dat seama ca a gresit. In sfarsit, pornesc, trec pe langa o masina parcata la coltul strazii care, culmea, incepe si ea sa se miste fara sa puna semnal de plecare. In acel moment chinezul ingalbeste si incepe sa zica "O my God! O my God!". Din nou pun frana si ma asigur ca cel de langa mine nu imi ia fata.
La final, eram asa de incordata ca nu mai intelegeam pe care loc de parcare imi cerea chinezul sa parchez. La parcare, asa ca bonus, cand roteam volanul si ma chinuiam sa asez masina drept, ating maneta pentru stergatoare si le pornesc. Chinezul ii tot dadea inainte " Park the car nicely! It is your last chance."
Dar, in final a fost dragut si m-a trecut; cred ca vazuse el la viata lui multi chinezi mai slabi decat am fost eu. In plus, o fi zis ca daca aia care aveau carnet au incalcat regulile, iar eu i-am salvat viata conducand prudent, cum putea sa ma pice?
Asta a fost aventura mea, dar mi-e groaza fiindca va trebui sa ma gandesc sa dau testul si pentru G full. Chiar ca ma apuca durerea de cap doar cand ma gandesc la "marea" de masini de pe autostrada. De ce ma obliga sa imi iau carnet G full daca eu stiu ca nu o sa ies niciodata pe autostrada? Mie imi ajunge condusul in oras, si chiar si aici traseele mele sunt stiute dinainte.

Monday 5 March 2012