Brexit

[PAR 279]

Some people comment on benefits to foreigners, all I am pointing out is that there’s are public numbers for people to make up their mind of advantages vs cost.

The UK as a state is spending about GBP800 more per inhabitant than it collects taxes, EEA people living in the UK pay more taxes than the average person living in the UK contributing to a reduction in the deficit.

Separately, the U.K. net contribution to the EU budget is about GBP8.9bn

EEA nationals collect GBP2.8bn of benefits

EEA nationals pay GBP16.4bn of direct taxes (income and NIC)

VAT receipts and corporate tax cannot be allocated by nationality of who generates them so there is no number and relative contribution although you could imagine that higher wages are more likely to be higher contributors.

[Andyww 1,291]

The above assumes that arrival of EU immigrants causes no loss of jobs to existing workers and no wage compression. But there is huge evidence that both of these occur.

The UK loses huge amounts of VAT and Corp tax owing to EU membership because multinationals invoice from Jersey, Luxembourg or other such places and use avoidance dodges such as the "Dutch Sandwich" method of cross-accounting for IP costs.

 

[C8RKH 6,452]

1 hour ago, PAR said:

The UK as a state is spending about GBP800 more per inhabitant than it collects taxes, EEA people living in the UK pay more taxes than the average person living in the UK contributing to a reduction in the deficit.

These are gross generalisations. You could quite easily argue that the figures are swayed by the number of EEA people who work within the London area in Financial Services for example.

To be clear, i do not see people from the EEA living here as a bad thing at all.  I do not have a problem with them taking or doing local jobs either. A free market for workers and their services is what we should have and that means the best person gets the job ( irrespective of colour, race, religion, sex etc.) and by having the best our companies have the best opportunity to compete and succeed.

I'm still struggling to understand the point you are trying to make though I concede that is probably down to my lack of understanding.

[pete 1,915]

7 hours ago, C8RKH said:

 

I'm still struggling to understand the point you are trying to make though I concede that is probably down to my lack of understanding.

Possibly because he is FRENCH?😂😂

[PAR 279]

II am not trying to make any point just giving data points. There is a debate here  on the contribution/cost of EEA people leaving in the U.K. so I provided some numbers. All those numbers per inhabitant need to be put in the perspective the fact the UK’s spends more per inhabitant (about GBP800) than it collects. If the average EEA migrant contributes GBP400 more than the average, then it is more difficult to assess if the contribution compared to other state burden is negative or positive. If it is GBP2300 as per the Oxford institute number, then there the average is meaningfully higher than the average deficit per inhabitant that gives clarity on the quantum. Btw, those numbers are pretty easy to reconcile with the published numbers from HMRC for those who have an interest in numbers.

As another benchmark, the government debt per inhabitant is GBP27k. This is a burden that can either be shared between more people or less. Government budget tools include borrowing more money increasing the burden further, increasing tax rates, cutting spending to trying to grow the economy further. As part of the economy growth you can have played on total quantum (number of working people) and on average output by worker. If you decrease the number of workers, you need a massive increase in output. If you can get the best paid job to migrate to your country, then you get progress on both sides.

To your previous point, yes figures are impacted by City workers and premier league players. Despite what some people would like you to believe, people in higher tax bracket do provide benefits to others by paying taxes. That being said outside the city, you can find the breakdown of tax brackets for different nationalities to understand better the nature of EEA immigration.

All i am saying is that there are a lot of numbers that are available out there to understand what is at stake here beyond hearsay and party propaganda.

Edited March 27, 2019 by PAR

[Barrykearley 6,988]

My neighbour is English - a bone idle bastard whom does nowt but claim off the state.

forget nationality - we have a country full of lazy good for nothing schiesters whom need to be cut

[Buddsy 1,643]

6 minutes ago, Barrykearley said:

forget nationality - we have a country full of lazy good for nothing schiesters whom need to be cut

Circumsized? Just for being lazy? Well its a start.

 

buddsy 

[C8RKH 6,452]

@PAR I think you're making my point. Just throwing out random "facts and figures" is not a debate. In fact, it's bordering on just throwing random stuff at the fan and seeing it where it sticks. 

You say you are not trying to make a point and then end with there a lot of numbers available to understand what is at stake beyond hearsay and propaganda. Well, to be honest, the "debate" on here moved on past that stage quite some time ago to be honest. The general tone is that all politicians in the UK, regardless of party, need to be fried at the stake.

You keep coming back to the UK spends more per inhabitant - yes, we heard you, and actually if you read back no body has disputed that. But please feel free to mention it again, and again.

You keep protesting that your numbers are valid - again, no body is denying it. A couple have pointed out how a small number will sway it, but that's it. A couple pointed out that you had read the numbers out of context - an easy and honest mistake.

You then say "Despite what some people would like you to believe, people in higher tax bracket do provide benefits to others by paying taxes" - a bit of sa random observation in the recent thread, but well hell yes, no shit Sherlock. I am lucky enough(!) to get taxed at the highest rate with NO personal allowance - so of course I bloody well agree with you -  but why would you think we would not understand that? Again, no one has said it is irrelevant. The only comment was that some of the EEA stats re contribution will be skewed by the high earners earning very high wages - 

Income tax represents roughly a quarter of what the government receives as "income" in the UK. Vat is around 18% and NIC is 19%. All easily verifiable. But so what? What does it really mean? The top 1% of earners in the UK (regardless of where they come from) contribute around 27% of the income tax take. See how a small number of high earners can dramatically impact the "average" figures? The top 50% of earners pay a whopping 90%. And the total contribution rate from the top earners is growing, and has been growing steadily for several years. The trend shows that fewer and fewer adults are paying any income tax whilst the top 1% is contributing more as a percentage take of the total. Some of that will be as a result of some people being "priced" out of jobs by EEA and other migrants, and some, due to other circumstances. But what it shows is a polarisation of wealth in this country and a widening gap between those that have a lot and those that don't.

So I agree with you there are a lot of numbers out there and that can help you to understand, but only if you look at the whole picture, and not at snippets and snapshots and use them to prove a point.  It's a bit like saying that because someone once had Chicken soup when they had a cold and felt better the next day, it proves that chicken soup cures a cold.  In isolation, the stat or figure is meaningless and only relevant when used and analysed in the correct context with a broader base of data etc.  So again, stats and figures are one side of the data set, not the total thing.

Sorry, my post is now looking/sounding like one of yours. I'm still confused by what you are trying to say to be honest, other than, we should love the EEA migrants as they make the country more wealthy.  If that's the message then fine, you don;t need to keep repeating the same stats and figures. As I'll just keep being confused :)

2 hours ago, pete said:

Possibly because he is FRENCH?😂😂

Well maybe it now all makes sense and I'm not so confused any more.  Thanks for that Pete.

[PAR 279]

OK, i promise I won’t post anymore.

Edited March 27, 2019 by PAR

[oilmagnet477 747]

so, in other news, MPs seize power (temporarily) from the Executive simply to prove, if further proof were needed!, that they couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery.

Honestly, FFS just agree to the withdrawal agreement - if it is SO bad then make fucking sure that we you negotiate a better deal that follows on from the TEMPORARY arrangement that is currently the ONLY ONE AVAILABLE!!!!!!

One MASSIVE shock tonight, my MP is a big Brexit supporter - up to now he has not supported the PM - if he does now (so we can move on at least) he just might get my vote again. Who knew??

[machine7 29]

@PAR Thank you for wanting to pay your taxes in this country, we are grateful for it. (assuming you do...)  However, I would imagine that if our feckless government decided to change our tax regime you would move to another country as you have no vestige interest in the UK. (my assumption, not knowing your personal circumstance. I have left working abroad as it was no longer economically beneficial). I apologise if I am picking you out in this debate. Whilst I would be on the same side of the fence as @C8RKH, at times I do feel he is rather too vociferous in his condemnation of the remain camp.

I would rather collect 10-20% through corporation tax of the £100 million the top 1% earn than go down the route of the 1970's Swedish  government that taxed the top earners at 102 %. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomperipossa_in_Monismania)

I imagine Astrid Lingren must have been a very nationalistic woman , as she chose to remain in Sweden. However, it isn't difficult as an individual to move to better ones personal situation, Especially in this day and age where communications and travel are so easy.  Which is probably why a lot of the most expensive property in London is becoming foreign owned: https://www.businessinsider.com/london-map-of-property-owned-by-foreigners-2015-9?r=US&IR=T 

Just set up a Limited company, Buy a property & claim it as your main residence. If you are that wealthy you are probably not spending more than 6 months in a single country and have income from more than one country. (The two main criteria for establishing where tax should be paid).Which is what businesses have been getting away with for years. A lot have set up headquarters in Luxembourg, (PayPal etc.) or Ireland (Dell, Apple etc) It would be nice if Brexit ever happens, that income earned in this country by conglomerates is taxed in this country, as opposed to the current situation.

Apropos to nothing above, I don't know why there isn't an agreement between the member states that individuals would only receive the same benefit amounts that  they would get in their own country.  Surely as a Equal and Fair EU, our feckless and lazy should be able to move to anywhere else within the EU and catch up with their relatives on Jeremy Kyle on a similar standard of living?

I'm not sure what my point is now, having waffled on for a while, but for full disclosure, I would probably have supported the 1975 referendum for joining the common market, but I did vote against the unstoppable power encroachment of the EU bureaucracy. Unfortunately, politicians are never going to propose a motion to reduce the power and influence they have on any aspect of our great and diverse continent, so I want out of this madness now before it is too late. We have more than enough levels of bureaucratic waste in our own country to not need another level of unelected politicians/ retirement home for war criminals (Blair). For me, the most indicative reason for voting out was during the run-up to the referendum, the remain camp could not/did not give a precis of the significant gains that the Eu commission had achieved whist being 'in power'.

[LotusLeftLotusRight 1,327]

So let me get this straight. The PM is now hoping that she will get her deal through (that no-one else wants) on the basis that she will then be replaced as PM by an arch Brexiteer, who can set about screwing-up the final negotiations with the EU? Meanwhile, she washes her hands of the mess and heads off into the sunset. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? 

Edited March 28, 2019 by LotusLeftLotusRight

[JG220 273]

Fundamentally, all sides are entrenched and it’s getting worse.  Leave voters can’ t see the Remain point of view and Remain voters can’t see the Leave one. Remain think that no one voted for no-deal, and that Brexiteers have all but given up arguing for any of the remaining Brexit options as being positively good accepting that they are all worse but they the represent what people voted for (Rees-Mogg, Boris etc). Leave think that Remain just need to get in line with a democratic process and enable leave and get on with it regardless of deals or no deals or what outcome it may have (I think). 

The only thing that most seem to agree on is the scale of how rotten May’s deal is. And as Beckett said last night, nothing would be more undemocratic than to push through something which which no one wanted (I’m paraphrasing slightly). 

[oilmagnet477 747]

4 minutes ago, JG220 said:

nothing would be more undemocratic than to push through something which which no one wanted

Paraphrasing aside, that statement is not true otherwise 650 MPs would have voted against it.

Fact is, things have changed, ie No Deal has supposedly been removed and No Brexit is becoming a harsh reality - this is maybe the outcome you want but it would certainly be undemocratic!

[C8RKH 6,452]

11 hours ago, machine7 said:

@C8RKH, at times I do feel he is rather too vociferous in his condemnation of the remain camp

Oi, I resemble that remark!  I like to think that I challenge them hard, as they seem to think it is OK to just call leavers stupid, racists, etc and that we never knew what we were asking for. So in my own way i do try to balance it out. I admit I may not always achieve that balance and do apologise for that. It is debate i want, but one were all sides are respected. Too often the Remain side believes they have the morale high ground. However, great post!

[C8RKH 6,452]

3 hours ago, LotusLeftLotusRight said:

So let me get this straight. The PM is now hoping that she will get her deal through (that no-one else wants) on the basis that she will then be replaced as PM by an arch Brexiteer, who can set about screwing-up the final negotiations with the EU? Meanwhile, she washes her hands of the mess and heads off into the sunset. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? 

Not quite how I see it.  May has tried to do the right thing and follow through on the non-binding referendum to leave, which was ratified and became binding by her winning the following general election with a mandate of leaving being voted in as part of the manifesto pledge (albeit in a minority government, but hey, that doesn't and has never stopped the SNP has it from following their dream). She has been "told" that her deal will ONLY be acceptable if she steps down, so, to ensure we leave WITH a deal, as opposed to NO deal, she has agreed to the demands of her MPs and has agreed to step down from the next stage. That's hardly doing a runner and washing your hands of it and is bordering on having some integrity for a politician - falling on her sword to enable he deal to be passed.  Funny how different people interpret different things and i guess that sums up the whole Brexit thing.

[C8RKH 6,452]

13 hours ago, PAR said:

OK, i promise I won’t post anymore.

Noooo, don't do that. Just because i don't understand or am confused is no reason for you to not have your say. The point is debate - every point and point of view is valid to the poster.

[LotusLeftLotusRight 1,327]

3 hours ago, C8RKH said:

She has been "told" that her deal will ONLY be acceptable if she steps down

What has that got to do with integrity? Immediately after the referendum, those same MPs crowned her as their leader to take them through to deliver Brexit. They didn't say "You do all the hard work to at least ensure we're out, then one of us will take over". She should tell them to sod off. I don't think there's been any integrity shown on any side in Westminster since Cameron fell for his Euro-sceptics dare of putting the referendum in his manifesto.

Anyway, we still don't know what's happening!

[C8RKH 6,452]

41 minutes ago, LotusLeftLotusRight said:

What has that got to do with integrity? Immediately after the referendum, those same MPs crowned her as their leader to take them through to deliver Brexit. They didn't say "You do all the hard work to at least ensure we're out, then one of us will take over". She should tell them to sod off. I don't think there's been any integrity shown on any side in Westminster since Cameron fell for his Euro-sceptics dare of putting the referendum in his manifesto.

Anyway, we still don't know what's happening!

Hang on, aren't you confusing HER INTEGRITY to do the right thing to get what she believes (whether anyone else believes or not is not the issue here) is right for the UK done, with that of the those same MPs who crowned her?  And Cameron and integrity in the same sentence. Blimey that's like putting Blair and saint in the same sentence, or Balls and intelligent, or Gove and trustworthy, or Milliband and Grommit....

[LotusLeftLotusRight 1,327]

Let's just agree to refrain from using the "i" word when it comes to politicians!

[scotty435 1,121]

20 hours ago, PAR said:

OK, i promise I won’t post anymore.

You have as much right to post your thoughts be it data or your personal views of the whole process as anyone else in the forum, if you think you are being bullied into submission, I don’t think that was the intention, well I hope not.

[PaulCP 691]

Looks as though we are facing a GE.

If this is the case the first thing that should happen is that every current MP should be fired by their constituents & replaced since they have demonstrated complete ineptitude during the Brexit process. Corbyn will get his wish (the GE) but should not be allowed to be around to win any GE since his approach all along has been just to try to kybosh any Tory deal, because that’s what he does best, react against the establishment of the day. (With SNP not far behind)

We won’t even go down the thought process of whether his past should allow him to stand for Parliament let alone PM

[Dan E 1,582]

and that has been my biggest fear in all of this, Corbyn in power. 

[Neal H 899]

GE will probably result in no overall majority, with a Corbyn led left-wing coalition of Labour, SNP and a few odd Lib-Dems and Greens.

The irony is this will be far more detrimental to the UK economy than a no-deal Brexit would have been!

Thanks idiot Tory MP's.

[Barrykearley 6,988]

Seems you may be overlooking a “brexit Party” option. This would completely muller both Tory and Labour