Does Migration Cost or Contribute?

The honest answer, per the government's own independent forecaster: it depends heavily on who, at what age, and earning what. There's no single "migrants cost the country X" or "migrants contribute Y" figure that captures it.

Why age at arrival matters

A migrant arriving in their 20s at UK-average earnings has, according to OBR modelling, a more positive lifetime fiscal contribution than a UK-born worker on the identical salary — not because they're taxed differently, but because the UK never paid for their childhood education and healthcare, while it did pay for the UK-born worker's. This is the mechanical basis for the "prime working age" pattern often cited in migration debates — it isn't about migrants being more or less deserving, it's an accounting consequence of who bore the upfront cost of raising them.

Real UK figures — the Skilled Worker route

The Migration Advisory Committee found that Skilled Worker visa holders who arrived in 2022/23 had an average net positive fiscal impact of £16,300 in their first year, compared to £800 for the average UK-born adult — and the OBR separately estimated the present value of that entire visa cohort's lifetime contribution at around £47bn. But that headline figure hides real internal variation: 72% of the total fiscal gain came from the top 30% of earners on the route, and dependants (as opposed to the main visa applicant) had a negative aggregate lifetime contribution.

The complication economists flag

The OBR modelled that an extra 200,000 people a year in net migration would raise total GDP by about 1.5% — but GDP per capita, generally considered the better measure of average living standards, rose by a negligible 0.1% under one set of assumptions, and actually fell by 0.4% under an alternative assumption about how much capital investment (offices, machinery, infrastructure) keeps pace with a larger workforce. This is a genuine, actively debated point among economists, not a settled question — a bigger economy overall doesn't automatically mean each person in it is better off.

It's also worth noting that shorter-term forecasts (the OBR's usual 5-year horizon) tend to show a more positive fiscal picture than long-term modelling, because they don't fully capture the costs that accumulate later as migrants age and eventually draw on pensions and health and social care.