More non-western immigrants have come to work, and it is one of the main reasons that the cost of migration in a year is decreased by five billion dollars.
It shows the Ministry of finance's new report with the latest figures, writes the newspaper Denmark.
- It is a very significant change, says finance minister Kristian Jensen (V) to the newspaper, Denmark and elaborates:
- It, which is positive, and that which is new, is that it is going the right way. We have been broken curve on the cost in relation to non-western immigration, and we can see that western immigration provides an extra plus.
this is The third year in a row, the ministry of Finance is counting on what immigration costs Denmark – this time with the latest figures from 2016.
the Report, according to the newspaper, Denmark has first to be written with a few years delay, as it is based on comprehensive data material, which is available at this time.
In 2016, the cost of the immigrants and their descendants in the Danish society 30 billion, where the figure of 2015 was 35 billion dollars.
the Calculations include both immigrants and their descendants, and overall, reveals the report about 719.000 human imprint on the federal treasury.
Broadly speaking, the report shows, what this group serves to the society in the form of tax revenues, and what they cost the treasury in expenditure, for example, transfer payments, education, the justice system and the health care system.
Although there has been a decrease in the total cost of five billion dollars from 2015 to 2016, is spending a year earlier - in 2014 - just as low as they were in 2016.
Finance minister denies, however, that he pumps his enthusiasm up to something, which it cannot bear.
- 2016-the figure is characterized by, that there was come an incredible number of asylum seekers in 2015, and in spite of it, we are already down to 30 billion crowns, the equivalent Kristian Jensen.
He refers to that group of non-western immigrants and their descendants increased by 51 000 people from 2014 to 2016, and that it is therefore, in itself, has cost the treasury to additional expenditure.