--- author: Money & Macro date: '2026-11-05' guest: '' layout: post.njk source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLyrjbufgLw speaker: Money & Macro tags: - immigration - fiscal-cost - welfare-state - labor-market title: 移民究竟让欧洲纳税人付出多大代价？ summary: 分析移民对欧洲福利国家财政影响的研究显示，整体净影响平均相对较小。然而，高收入与低收入移民群体之间存在巨大差异，且各国税收与养老金制度设计的不同，导致同一低技能移民家庭在英国等国造成的财政成本远高于西班牙或德国。 insight: '' draft: true series: '' category: macro-economy area: geopolitics project: [] people: - Pedro Sanchez - Meta Frederiksen - Usama Polanyi companies_orgs: - OECD - The Economist products_models: [] media_books: [] status: evergreen --- ### 欧洲领导人的分歧与移民的财政成本之争 移民每年究竟会让欧洲纳税人损失数十亿欧元，还是实际上维持欧洲养老金体系可持续性的唯一途径？如果你向来自同一政治阵营的两位欧洲领导人提出这个问题，可能会得到两个截然相反的答案。在西班牙，社会党首相佩德罗·桑切斯（Pedro Sanchez）会告诉你，移民在我们的企业工作，为我们的公共财政做贡献，维持着我们的福利国家。但在丹麦，社会民主党首相梅特·弗雷德里克森（Meta Frederiksen）说的却是另一番完全不同的话。我们的民众同样在付出代价，因为现在我们看到了社会中失控移民带来的后果——这一表态基于她自己的财政部所做的一项估算：来自中东、北非、巴基斯坦和土耳其的移民及其子女，每年给丹麦国家财政造成的成本约占其 GDP 的 1%。
Original English Do immigrants cost European taxpayers billions of euros every year, or are they actually the only way to keep Europe's pension system sustainable? If you ask that question to two European leaders from the same political family, you may get two completely contradictory answers. In Spain, Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez will tell you that migrants work in our companies, contribute to our public finances, sustain our welfare state. But in Denmark, Social Democratic Prime Minister Meta Frederiksen tells a very different story. Our populations are paying the price as well, because now we see the consequences of uncontrolled migration in our societies, which is based on the fact that her own Ministry of Finance estimated that immigrants from the Middle East, North Africa, Pakistan and Turkey, together with their children, cost a Danish state about 1% of GDP per year.
那么究竟是哪一种？欧洲是需要移民来维护其福利国家，特别是其养老金体系？还是移民正在让欧洲纳税人损失数十亿欧元？这显然是一个非常敏感、极具政治色彩的话题，但这并没有阻止我们之前讨论它。因此，我们本着开放的心态深入探讨，试图找出究竟哪种说法有最充分的事实证据支持，而不是先入为主。但在我们深入探讨之前，先剧透一下：答案并不简单。一些移民确实支持了福利国家，而另一些移民确实让纳税人花钱。真正有趣的是，某些移民让纳税人付出的代价远高于其他移民，而且同一个高成本移民给某些欧洲国家带来的成本远高于其他国家。例如，英国纳税人为同一个低技能移民支付的费用大约是西班牙纳税人的四倍。这是一件极少被讨论的事情。
Original English So which is it? Does Europe need immigrants to protect its welfare state, especially its pension system? Or are immigrants costing European taxpayers billions of euros? This is obviously a very sensitive, politically charged topic, but that has not stopped us from talking about it before. So we just went in with an open mind, trying to find out what story actually has the best evidence to back it up, rather than the other way around. But before we dive in. Here's a quick spoiler the answer is not simple. Some immigrants do support the welfare state, while others do cost a taxpayer money. What's really interesting is that some immigrants cost the taxpayer way more than others, and that the same high cost immigrant costs some European nations much more than others. For example, the British taxpayer pays roughly four times as much as the Spanish taxpayer for the same low skilled immigrant. Something that is rarely discussed.
### 计算移民财政净贡献的复杂性与假设 但我们只有理解了研究人员如何计算移民的财政成本，才能理解这些巨大的差异。因为确实存在一个单一的数字，至少在理论上如此。如果该数字为正，说明移民对福利国家做出了贡献；如果为负，则意味着移民基本上是由欧洲纳税人资助的。要得到这个数字，你需要计算两件事：移民缴纳的税款，减去他们领取的公共福利（如养老金、公共服务和转移支付）。现在，其中一些很容易计算：政府当然知道谁缴纳了所得税，谁缴纳了社会保障缴费，而家庭消费调查能让他们很好地估算增值税和其他消费税。然而，有些事情要困难得多。诚然，政府知道谁领取了像养老金或失业救济金这样的现金转移支付，但是要为移民在一年中享受的每一次就医、学校活动和公交乘坐赋予具体的欧元价值，就要困难得多。因此，移民的最终成本或贡献在很大程度上取决于你如何估算这些项目。
Original English But we can only understand these massive differences if we understand how researchers calculate the fiscal cost of immigration. Because yes, there is a single number. At least in theory. If that number is positive, an immigrant contributes to the welfare state. And if it's negative, an immigrant is essentially financed by the European taxpayer. To get this number, you need to calculate two things. How much an immigrant pays in taxes, minus how much they receive in public benefits such as pensions, public services, and transfers. Now some of these are easy to calculate. Governments know, of course, who pays and income tax and who pays social security contributions and household consumption surveys. Let them estimate VAT and other consumption taxes pretty well. However, some things are much harder. Sure, governments know who receives cash transfers like benches or unemployment benefits. But putting a euro value on every doctor's visit, school plays, and bus ride that an immigrant value uses in a single year is much harder. So the final cost or contribution of immigrants can vary a lot depending on how you estimate these things.
例如，经合组织（OECD）2021 年的一份报告估计，在 2006 年至 2018 年间，25 个富裕国家的移民缴纳的税款相当于 GDP 的 1.56%，超过了他们在福利、医疗和教育方面获得的补助。但该数字仅考虑了像就医这样的直接成本。一旦经合组织将治安、道路维护和公共交通等政府服务的相应份额计入移民成本，该盈余便降至 GDP 的 0.88%。如果他们随后再分摊国防和国债利息等成本——这可能并不公平，因为新移民并没有真正改变这些支出——那么移民的净贡献就降至 GDP 的 -0.6%。因此，根据这项研究，移民可能会略微减轻纳税人负担，也可能会略微增加负担，完全取决于所采用的假设。如你所见，这是非常棘手的问题。
Original English For example, a 2021 OSD report estimated that between 2006 and 2018, immigrants across 25 rich countries paid in Texas the equivalent of 1.56% of GDP, more than they received in benefits, health care and education. But that number only took into account direct costs like doctor's visits. And once the OECD charged immigrants for their share of government services like policing, road maintenance and public transport, that surplus dropped to 0.88% of GDP. And if they then assigned costs for stuff like defense and interest on the national debt, which may be unfair since a new immigrant does not really change these costs. An immigrant net contribution then fell to -0.6% of GDP. So according to this study, immigration may slightly reduce the taxpayer burden or may slightly increase it, depending on the assumptions. This is tricky stuff, as you can see.
### 生命周期的视角与长期估算难题 事实上，在这项研究中，他们可能存在一个致命缺陷，因为计算忽略了经济学家所说的生命周期效应。也就是说，移民通常是处于工作年龄的成年人。因此，如果你只计算他们在过去几年的贡献，那么你只考虑了他们的工作年限，而在此期间他们纳税最多、领取的福利最少。因此，真正的问题在于一个人一生中所缴纳的税款和其他贡献，是否超过了他一生中所领取的一切。税收与福利的生命周期通常是这样的：孩童时期，你享受学校教育、医疗保障、儿童福利，之后可能还会享受国家资助的大学教育，所有这些都需要国家花钱；既然你不缴纳所得税，你就是福利国家的净负担。但随后你开始工作、纳税，并且很少去看医生，这时你就是一个净贡献者；但随后你退休了，今天的工人将支付你的养老金。像我们在报告中看到的那种单一的静态快照遗漏了所有这一切。
Original English And actually in this study, they may have had a fatal flaw because the calculation left out what economists call life cycle effects. That is immigrants are typically working age adults. So if you just calculate what they contribute over the past couple of years, then you only take into account their working years during which they pay the most in taxes and require the fewest benefits. Therefore, the real question is whether the taxes and other contributions that a person pays over their entire life exceeds everything that they receive over their entire life. Okay. The text welfare life cycle typically goes like this. As a child, you enjoy schooling, health care, child benefits, and perhaps later a state sponsored university. All things that cost the state money. So since you do not pay income taxes, you are a net drain on the welfare state. But then you start working, paying taxes and rarely seeing a doctor. Now you are a net contributor, but then you retire and today's workers will pay your pension. A single static snapshot like that we have seen in the report misses all of this.
但如果你觉得之前计算移民带来的收益和成本很困难，那么对于刚抵达的移民而言，生命周期的贡献估算当然还要难得多。你现在还必须去猜测他们的收入——不仅是现在，而是他们整个人生的收入；他们会工作多久，他们有资格领取什么样的养老金，他们需要领取多久，以及他们是否会在退休前返回母国？这样一长串难以估算的假设，可以解释为什么当我们查阅各项研究时，它们的结果差异极大：有些研究发现纳税人从移民中获益良多，而很多其他研究却发现移民对纳税人而言实际上是个坏消息。但即便在移民对国家究竟是做出贡献还是造成负担上没有达成共识，大家基本上达成了一项共识：无论结果偏向哪一边，正如经合组织的研究所示，该数字实际上都相对较小。也就是说，移民既拯救不了欧洲的福利国家，平均而言也没有让纳税人付出那么多代价。但这恰恰是因为某些移民确实让福利国家更具可持续性，而另一些移民实际上让国家花费了相当多的钱。
Original English But if you think calculating with an immigrant brings in and costs was difficult before then, life cycle contributions are of course even harder to estimate for a new arrival. You now have to also guess their earnings, not just now, but over their entire life. How long their work, what pensions they will qualify for? How long did they will need it, and whether they will return home before retiring? Such a laundry list of difficult to estimate assumptions can explain that when we went through various studies, they varied wildly. Some studies found that taxpayers benefit a lot from immigration. Will many others found immigration is actually bad news for the taxpayer. But even though there was no consensus on whether or not immigrants contribute or cost to the state, there was essentially consensus that whichever way it goes, the number, just like in the OECD study, is actually relatively small. That is, immigrants are not going to save Europe's welfare state, but they also do not cost the taxpayer that much on average. But that is because some immigrants are actually making the welfare state much more sustainable, while others do actually cause the state quite a lot of money.
### 出身国、就业率差异与歧视 vs 文化的作用 那么，哪些移民在做贡献，哪些在消耗纳税人的钱？鉴于这是一个非常具有争议的问题，让我先陈述一个显而易见的事实：一个人的出身并非命运。无数的叙利亚医生和护士对德国经济的贡献，远大于没有工作的德国本土出生者；同样，在英国的印度科技专业人士缴纳的税款，通常显著高于一名英国咖啡师。话虽如此，对于欧洲而言，研究确实发现来源国对于平均移民工作多久和收入多少有着极大的影响。这当然对他们为福利国家做出多少贡献造成了巨大的差异。我们发现的最令人震惊的统计数据是，在整个欧洲，出生于外国的穆斯林女性的就业率极低。也就是说，在几乎所有欧洲国家中，她们进入劳动力市场的比例不到一半，因此不缴纳任何税款。这几乎只有欧洲本土出生女性比例的一半。
Original English So which immigrants contribute and which cost the taxpayer? Since this is a very controversial issue, let me start by stating the obvious. Where someone is from is not destiny. Countless Syrian doctors and nurses contribute far more to the German economy than native born Germans who are out of work. Likewise, an Indian tech professional in the UK typically pays significantly more in taxes than a British barista. That said, for Europe, research does find that the country of origin matters a lot for how much average immigrants work and earn. And that is, of course, making a massive difference for how much they contribute to the welfare state. The most shocking statistic that we found is that across Europe, Muslim foreign born women experience exceptionally low rates of employment. That is in almost all European countries. Fewer than half of them are in the workforce and therefore do not pay any taxes. That is nearly half the rate of native born European women.
但这是为什么呢？在这里，讨论当然很容易变得非常政治化。左派通常喜欢强调歧视——即移民想工作，但遭到了拒聘；而在另一边，右派可能会强调某些文化与欧洲的文化差异实在太大。根据研究，并不令人意外的是，真相介于两者之间。是的，招聘决策中的歧视是一个有充分证据记录的问题，例如在盲审简历研究中就有体现。比如在法国，穆斯林应聘者收到面试通知的可能性比基督徒应聘者低 2.5 倍，哪怕他们拥有非常重要且完全相同的简历；在德国，拥有德国名字且不戴头巾的申请人有 19% 获得了回复，相比之下，拥有土耳其名字的申请人为 14%，而拥有土耳其名字且戴头巾的申请人仅有 4%。
Original English But why? Here the discussion can, of course easily get very political. The left typically likes to emphasize discrimination. That is, immigrants want to work, but they are refused a job. On the other end, the right may emphasize that some cultures are simply too different from those in Europe. And perhaps not surprisingly, according to research, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Yes, discrimination in hiring decisions is a well documented problem found in, for example, blind resume studies. For example, in France, a muslim candidate is two and a half times less likely than their Christian counterpart to receive a job interview callback, even when they have very important exactly the same TV. In Germany, 19% of applicants with German names and no headscarf got a call back, against 14% with Turkish names and only 4% with a Turkish name and a headscarf.
但歧视只是故事的一部分。在穆斯林占多数的国家，穆斯林女性的就业率同样非常低，而在那些国家反穆斯林歧视并不是一个合理解释。事实上，移民原籍国女性的工作情况，甚至能预测她们的女儿工作多少以及生育多少个孩子——即使这些女儿是在欧洲出生并长大的。因此，文化显然也塑造了移民女性自身最终的工作情况，以及她们追赶当地人的速度。但不仅是某些移民女性工作较少，来自中亚、南亚、中东和北非（即所谓的 CASAMENA 国家）的男性收入远低于本地人或其他移民，主要是由于缺乏对语言的掌握以及受教育水平较低。在德国，70% 的 CASAMENA 全职劳工属于收入最低的四分之一家庭，而德国本地人中这一比例仅为 38%。在西班牙，这一差距同样巨大。在英国，这一差距看起来要好得多，但那是因为英国统计包含了印度男性劳工，他们通常受教育程度更高并在薪酬更高的岗位工作；如果我们排除他们，我们还会发现，例如在处于工作年龄的巴基斯坦和孟加拉国男性中，只有 39% 拥有全职工作。
Original English But discrimination is only a part of a story. Muslim female employment is also very low in Muslim majority countries, where anti-Muslim discrimination is not a plausible cause. In fact, how much women work in an immigrant home country even predicts how much their daughters work and how many children they have. Even when those daughters are born and raised in Europe. So culture also clearly shapes how much immigrant women themselves and up working and how fast they catch up with the natives. But it's not just that some immigrant women work less. Men from Central Asia, South Asia, the Middle East and North Africa, the so-called Casa mena countries earn much lower wages than natives or other immigrants, mainly due to a lack of mastering the language and lower education levels in Germany. 70% of full time Casa mena workers fall into the poorest quarter of households, compared to just 38% of native Germans. In Spain, the gap is just as big and okay. In the UK, the gap looks much better, but that is because it includes Indian working meals who are usually better educated and work in higher paying positions. If we exclude them, we also find that only 39% of working age Pakistani and Bangladeshi male, for example, have a full time job.
### 丹麦案例：西方与非西方移民的差异及动态变化 因此，当男性赚取的工资远低于平均水平，且许多女性不工作时，你自然会预计，平均而言非西方移民家庭给欧洲纳税人造成的成本要明显高于他们带来的收益。但这真的属实吗？这引出了丹麦首相对于移民益处的怀疑态度。2017 年，一项主要的丹麦研究追踪了每位居民的整个生命周期，将他们一生所缴纳的所有税款与他们一生所领取的所有福利相加。令人震惊的是，他们发现非西方移民每年给国家造成 2200 的成本，其子女每年额外造成 1000 欧元的成本。而在另一边，一名在丹麦的西方移民每年为公共财政贡献 2500。因此，平均而言，移民确实可能不会产生太多成本或效益，但那仅仅是因为高薪的西方移民赚得极多，以至于掩盖了非西方移民的巨额成本。也就是说，如果丹麦没有西方移民且这些数据正确，那么非西方移民及其后裔给丹麦造成的成本大约相当于其 GDP 的 1%。这听起来可能是一个小数目，但它比丹麦每年在所有公路、铁路和公共交通上的支出总和还要多。
Original English So when men earn much lower wages than average and many women do not work. You would of course expect that on average non-Western immigrant families would actually cost the European taxpayer significantly more than they bring in. But is that actually true? This gets us to the Danish prime minister's skeptic take on the benefits of immigration. In 2017, a major Danish study tracked the entire lifetime of every resident adding up all the taxes that they pay versus all the benefits that they receive over their whole lives. And shockingly, they found that non-Western immigrants cost the state 2200 per year with their children, causing an additional €1,000 per year. And on the other hand, a Western immigrant in Denmark contributed 2500 per year to public finances. So on average, immigrants may indeed not cost or benefit that much. But that's only because highly paid Western immigrants earn so much that they hide the massive cost of non-Western immigrants. That is, if there were no Western immigrants in Denmark and these numbers would be correct, then non-Western immigrants and their descendants would cost Denmark roughly 1% of GDP. Now, that may sound like a small number, but it is more than Denmark annually spends on all of its roads, railroads and public transport combined.
话虽如此，这项具体研究依赖的是较旧的数据，我们必须指出，当时非西方女性的工作比例不如今天这么高。自该研究发表以来，这些特定群体中的女性劳动参与率在丹麦的上升速度比欧洲几乎任何其他地方都要快。因此，如果今天重新开展这项研究，数字可能远没有那么糟糕。那么这告诉了我们什么？是的，文化很重要，但并非不可改变的宿命。如果移民得到妥善同化，他们给福利国家造成的成本会少得多，甚至有可能做出贡献。但适用于丹麦的结论可能并不适用于其他欧洲国家。也就是说，丹麦首相和西班牙首相可能都是正确的：平均而言，非西方移民给丹麦带来的成本可能远高于西班牙，原因有二。第一，西班牙的大多数非西方移民来自拉丁美洲，而西班牙的拉美女性工作比例与西班牙本地女性相似。第二个原因是，丹麦的福利国家是世界上最慷慨的之一，拥有高额的社会住房供给以及几乎完全积累制的养老金体系，这意味着移民到达时并不为已退休的丹麦人买单；相比之下，西班牙几乎没有任何社会住房，但它运行着慷慨的现收现付制体系，这意味着每位在职的移民都会立即开始为数量众多的西班牙退休人员支付费用。
Original English That being said, this particular study relied on all the data. We have to say, when a non-Western women did not work as much as they do today. And since this studies publication, female labor force participation amongst these specific groups has risen faster in Denmark than almost anywhere else in Europe. And therefore, if the study was run again today, the numbers would probably be far less bad. So what does this tell us? Yes, culture is important, but it is not destiny. If immigrants are properly assimilated, they will cost the welfare state way less and potentially may even contribute. But what may hold for Denmark may not hold for other European countries. That is, Denmark's and Spain's prime ministers could both be correct. Non-Western immigrants may, on average cost Denmark far more than Spain for two reasons. The first is that most non-Western immigrants in Spain come from Latin America, and Latin women in Spain work at similar rates than the Spanish counterparts. And the second reason is that Denmark's welfare state is one of the most generous in the world, with high social housing provisions and a mostly fully funded pension system, meaning that immigrants do not pay for retired Danes when they arrive. In contrast, Spain barely has any social housing, but it runs a generous pace you go system, meaning that every working immigrant immediately start paying for those many, many Spanish retirees.
### 福利国家制度设计：四国思想实验对比 换句话说，如果我们想了解移民对纳税人究竟是造成负担还是带来收益，我们还有一个真正需要探讨的重要因素：福利国家的制度设计。为了说明究竟是怎么回事，经济学家乌萨马·波拉尼（Usama Polanyi）在最近的一篇工作论文中进行了一个简单的思想实验：以同一个移民家庭为例——一对 30 岁到达且带有两个孩子的夫妇，将他们分别置于英国、德国、法国或西班牙；然后探究母亲工作多少，并将此与父亲需要赚取多少才能使该家庭在接下来的 60 年里对福利国家的投入与索取相抵结合起来。如果母亲的工作量与典型的本地女性相同，答案因国家而异就已经很大了：在德国，父亲的工资可以相当低，家庭仍能实现收支平衡；在西班牙和法国，他需要赚取略低于中位数的收入；但在英国，父亲的收入需要远高于中位数才能承担得起对福利国家的贡献。
Original English In other words, there is another important factor that we really need to talk about if we want to understand if immigrants cost or benefit the taxpayer. Welfare state design. To illustrate what's going on in a recent working paper, the economist Usama Polanyi ran a simple thought experiment. Take the same immigrant family, a couple who arrives at 30 with two kids and drop them into Britain, Germany, France or Spain. Then ask how much the mother works and combine this with how much the father needs to earn for the family to pay into the welfare state as much as it takes out over the next 60 years. If the mother works as much as the typical native women, the answer already varies a lot by country. In Germany, the father can really quite a low wage and the family still breaks even in Spain and France. He needs to earn a little bit below the medium. But in Britain, the father needs to earn well above the median to be able to pay into the welfare state.
但现在改变一个条件：母亲几乎不工作，正如我们所见，这对于来自该地区的女性而言相当普遍。现在，父亲突然需要在所有国家都挣到非常非常优厚的薪水，才能成为净贡献者。具体而言，他的收入必须超过西班牙约 62% 的工人、德国的 70%、法国的 73%，以及英国高达 77% 的工人。这些是相当大的差距，主要可以通过福利国家制度设计的两个因素来解释：第一，低收入者是必须像在西班牙那样纳税，还是像在英国那样获得大幅税收减免；第二，低收入者的养老金有多慷慨，以及他们是否为现有的本地退休人员买单。英国的税收和养老金制度对低收入者相对宽容，因此每个人收入的第一部分——对于全职拿最低工资的工人来说，大约每年最初的 12,000 英镑既免征所得税，也免征雇员国民保险——这一巨大的免税额度覆盖了他们大约一半的工资，对于兼职人员来说则覆盖了大部分工资。因此，英国的低收入者缴纳相对较少的所得税和保险费。
Original English But now change one thing. The mother barely works, as is quite common as we've seen for females from this region. Now, suddenly the father needs to make a very, very good salary everywhere to be a net contributor. Specifically, he has to outturn about 62% of workers in Spain, 70% in Germany, 73% in France, and a whopping 77% in Britain. These are some pretty big differences, which can mostly be explained by two factors of welfare state design one whether low earners have to pay taxes like in Spain, or get a big tax break like they do in the UK. And two, by how generous low earner pensions are and whether or not they pay for current native retirees, Britain's tax and pension system is relatively kind to low earners, and therefore the first slice of everyone's earning. Roughly the first 12,000 pounds a year is exempt from both income tax and employee national insurance for a full time worker on the minimum wage. That massive tax free slice covers about half their pay, and for part timers, it covers most of it. So low earners in Britain pay relatively little income tax and insurance.
到了老年，英国支付的主要是统一标准的国家基础养老金，只要你达到了足够的达标年限（照顾孩子或领取某些福利的时间也计算在内），无论你挣得多还是挣得少，大致都能领取相同的养老金。因此，无论是移民还是英国本地的低收入者，虽然缴费相对较少，但依然能领取全额的国家养老金。从平等的角度来看这当然很好，但由于非西方移民在其一生中通常赚得不多，这确实让他们对英国政府而言显得极为昂贵。德国和法国则倾向于相反的方向：社会缴费更早介入且力度更大。在法国，雇员缴费从挣得的第一欧元就开始起征；在德国，大约从每月 600 欧元开始逐步计入，并在 2000 欧元时达到大约 20% 的全额费率。而且养老金挂钩于你的缴费金额，因此零散低薪的职业生涯只能为你带来微薄的养老金。两国随后确实会为最贫困的退休人员补足差额，但德国和法国的这一兜底门槛要低得多，也比英国更难达到。这就解释了为什么英国的移民家庭必须付出如此多的劳动和收入才能成为净贡献者，并且比在德国、法国以及西班牙的要求高得多。
Original English And then in old age, Britain pays a largely flat state pension. Once you've had enough qualifying years and years spent caring for children or on certain benefits, count as well. So then you roughly get the same pension, whether you earn a lot or a little. So low earners, whether immigrants or British, pay in relatively little, but still they receive the full state pension. This is, of course, great from an equality perspective, but since non-Western immigrants typically do not earn that much of their lifetime, it does make them very, very expensive indeed to the British state. Germany and France lean the other way. Social contributions bite earlier and harder. In France, employee contributions start from the first euro earned. And in Germany, they face in from about €600 a month and reach the full rate of roughly 20% at 2000. And pensions track what you paid in so Apache low paid career earns you a small pension. Both countries then do top up the poorest pensioners, but that floor is much lower and harder to reach in Germany, in France than it is in Britain. And this explains why UK immigrant families have to work and earn so much to be a net contributor, and so much more than in Germany and France and also in Spain.
### 核心结论与对政策选择的建议 总而言之，平均来看，由于研究人员在计算该数字时不得不做出诸多假设，我们无法得出移民给欧洲纳税人带来成本或效益的确切数字。然而，相当明确的是，平均而言，移民并没有给欧洲纳税人造成太大成本，也没有带来太大收益。但这种净值为零的平均水平掩盖了两个极为重要的经验教训：第一，某些高收入移民群体弥补了消耗大量纳税人资金的低收入移民群体；第二，即使是低收入移民群体，给某些欧洲国家纳税人（例如英国）造成的成本，也远高于其他国家（例如德国，尤其是西班牙）。
Original English So in conclusion, on average, we do not have a precise number of what immigrants cost or benefit the European taxpayers due to how many assumptions researchers have to make to calculate that number. However, it's pretty clear that on average, immigration does not cost or benefit the European taxpayer that much. But that net zero average hides two super important lessons. Number one, some high earning immigrant groups compensate for low earning immigrant groups that cost the taxpayer a lot. Number two, even low earning immigrant groups cost some European taxpayers, like those in Britain, way more than in other countries, like for example, Germany and especially Spain.
那么欧洲国家如何利用这些发现来设计保护福利国家的移民政策呢？但在给出我的看法之前，先做几点政治免责声明，希望这能让评论区稍微更具建设性一些：第一，尽管来自某些特定国家的群体平均而言可能给欧洲纳税人带来成本，但来自这些国家的许多移民实际上对福利国家做出了巨大贡献，所以不要根据平均值去评判他们；第二，这些研究仅考虑了直接贡献，如果你把移民确实会花钱——而这些花销会变成当地人的应税收入——考虑进去，移民平均而言可能对福利国家显得更加必要；第三，即使你仍然认为低收入移民可能直接耗费纳税人的钱，但由于他们的低工资降低了物价，他们可能会使同一批纳税人受益，而这一点并未体现在这些研究中；最后，移民问题不仅仅关乎经济学，你可能欢迎文化多样性，也可能讨厌它，这并不是本视频的主旨所在。免责声明结束。
Original English So how can European countries use these findings to design an immigration policy that protects the welfare state? But before giving you my take, here are some political disclaimers that hopefully will make the comment section slightly more constructive. Number one, even though groups from certain countries may on average cost the European taxpayer, many immigrants from these countries do actually contribute a lot to the welfare state, so don't judge them based on the average. Two these studies only take into account direct contributions, and if you take into account that immigrants do spend money which is taxable income to locals, immigrants may on average look a lot more necessary for the welfare state. Number three, even if you still think that low earning immigrants may cost the taxpayer directly, they may help the same taxpayer because they lower prices thanks to their low wages. And this does not show up in these studies. And finally, immigration is not just about economics. You may welcome some cultural leavers tea or you may hate it. That is not what this video was about. Disclaimer time over.
以下是我从本视频中总结的三点要点。根据我们的研究，我认为如果欧洲国家希望在人口老龄化的背景下通过移民来维持其福利国家，他们基本上有三个选择：第一，他们在同化移民方面做得非常好，这将提高移民的工资和劳动力参与率，这是最重要的事，特别是对于女性；第二，他们实行选择性准入，只允许对福利国家有贡献的高技能移民进入，这可能是一个倾向于接纳更容易同化的西方国家移民的选择；或者第三，他们改革福利国家体制，使得低收入移民如果想要为自己争取慷慨的福利待遇，就必须赚得更多并缴纳更多税款。当然，他们也可以选择这三种方法的结合。不过，是的，这就是我对这个政治敏感话题的看法。你怎么看？请在下方建设性且深思熟虑的评论区中告诉我。
Original English Here are my three takeaways from this video. Based on our research, I would argue that if European countries want to maintain their welfare state with aging population through immigration, they essentially have three options. One, they get really good at assimilating immigrants. This will raise their wages and workforce participation. That's the most important thing, especially for women. Number two, they get selective only letting in highly skilled immigrants that contribute to the welfare state. Potentially, this could be an option favoring immigrants from Western nations that are easier to assimilate. Or number three, they change their welfare state such that low earning immigrants may have to earn more and pay more taxes if they want generous welfare benefits for themselves. Or, of course, they could choose a combination of these three approaches. But yeah, that was my take on a politically sensitive topic. What do you think? Let me know in a constructive, thoughtful comment section below.
如果你想进一步了解移民对东道国的经济影响，我强烈推荐今天赞助商《经济学人》（The Economist）的以下三篇优秀后续文章：首先，去看看这篇深度分析，它梳理了近期关于移民如何影响从社会凝聚力到住房（非常重要）以及劳动力市场等方方面面的相当令人不安的研究发现；其次，阅读这篇文章，它是一个案例研究：当一个经济体完全或几乎完全关上大门时会发生什么——本例中即脱欧后的英国；第三，如果你想了解大西洋彼岸的情况，这篇文章审视了唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）的移民打击政策以及这正在给美国经济带来的代价。正如这些例子所示，《经济学人》提供了帮助你纵观全局并独立思考的见解。这也是为什么我几乎总是依靠他们的分析来进行研究，也是我强烈建议你订阅的原因。鉴于他们目前为 Money & Macro 观众提供 35% 的特别优惠折扣，这现在比以往任何时候都更有吸引力。无论你喜欢在《经济学人》应用程序中阅读、观看还是收听新闻，还是像我一样喜欢在周末端上一杯香浓的咖啡配上印刷版来了解全球经济动态，你都能始终掌握最新的全球动态，并支持重视事实信息、诚信和独立观点的受尊重新闻业。所以千万不要错过，点击下方描述栏或置顶评论中的链接，或前往 Money Macro 立即领取你的专属 35% 折扣。
Original English And if you want to learn more about the economic impact of immigration on host countries, I highly recommend the following three excellent follow up articles from today's sponsor, The Economist. First, go check out this deep dive. It goes through the quite uncomfortable findings from recent research on how immigration affects everything from social cohesion to housing, very important and labor market. Second, then read this article, which is a case study. What happens to an economy when it slams the door shut completely or almost completely in this case, Britain after Brexit? And then third, if you want to see how the story plays out across the Atlantic, this piece looks at Donald Trump's immigration crackdown and what it is now costing the American economy. As these examples show, The Economist delivers insights that help you see the bigger picture and think for yourself. And this is why I almost always rely on their analysis for my research, and it's why I highly recommend you subscribe. And that's actually now more interesting than ever, given that they are offering a special 35% discount for money and macro viewers. Whether you prefer to read, watch or listen to need journalism in the Economist app, or you're like me and enjoy catching up on the global economy over the weekend with a nice cup of coffee and the print edition, you will always stay on top of the latest global developments and support journalism that values factual information, integrity and an independent point of view with The Economist, so don't miss out. Click the link in the description or top comment below, or head over to Money Macro to claim your exclusive 35% discount today.