The evidence is math. Even if you have a flat rate and everyone in the population is equally benefitted with social services, there are 50% of people who are contributing less than they take and 50% who are contributing more than they take. That looks even worse when we relax the flax rate assumption (most countries have progressive taxation) and the amount of social benefits a given segment receives (poor people tend to cost more). The only way to counteract that is if those low-skilled workers can generate more wealth (in the form of GDP and taxation) than they are consuming from public service, which of course will depend from country to country (the ones that have a higher social welfare will require higher output to be produced by the low-skilled immigrant to make the costs neutral).

Isn’t this assuming people stay in fixed “compartments” over their lifetime?

My experience with social safety nets in EU is that they have been there when I’ve needed them - when I was a poor student, when I was sick — and now that I’m in a different life phase I pay that forward

Your math makes sense at any given instant, but who is on what side changes if you view it over time

Take a look at net contribution to Danish welfare state over time. https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-e...

Danish are the highest contributors with Western immigrants close behind. Non western immigrants contribute a lot less and MENAPT (middle east, north africa, pakistan, and turkey) are doing even worse.

The immigrants will have children that will be better-acclimated and contribute more, no?

The graph includes the descendents.

I see, thanks.

Approximately how many generations of descendants are included? Is it possible that intaking non-western immigrants is an investment that will pay off in the future, but the payoff has not materialized yet?

> 50% of people who are contributing less than they take

Do you have a citation for that broad brush number for what they take?

I was modeling a ficticious society with a normally distributed income, flax taxation and equally distributed social benefits. In reality it's more skewed and fewer than 50% are net positive.

I’m curious - what would a citation give you? An authority you may trust or distrust? Do you not understand the dynamic he outlined?

> The evidence is math.

If there are 101 people, 100 making 101 sandwich per year and 1 doing nothing, and everyone needs 100 sandwiches per year, 99% are contributing more than they take. This works the other way too.

You are talking about economic output, and I agree it is very difficult for someone to be a net negative in this metric (someone would have to contribute almost nothing to the economy and take what they need to survive as donation). We are talking about a tax system with contributions and expenses. In this system, less than 50% are net contributors.

What are you talking about? The above system is 1% tax on everyone who makes something, and all expenses go to hit minimum 100 sandwiches for everyone. Clearly 99% are net contributors.

> everyone in the population is equally benefitted with social services

Already your argument is falling apart. Government spending goes disproportionately to children and the elderly who don't work. Workers, even low skill ones, are almost always a net positive.