Current Affairs The General Election

[dholliday]

Maybe a good place to start would be to remember that pretty much every serious economist accepts that the UK gets back far more than £350 million per week by virtue of our membership of the EU, and indeed that leaving it, especially with the deals proposed by the Tories, will make the country, and the government, significantly poorer and therefore less able to invest in whatever it wants.

Which serious economists? Who decides how that money is spent? And in what way does the UK get back more than it puts in? You referring to VAT-savings due to in-EU trading? That doesn't count, clearly. But sounds like that's what you mean when you write by virtue of our membership of the EU.

Theoritical trade savings can't be used in any serious argument about numbers until we know what kind of deal is in place post-Brexit regarding VAT within EU trade, and what could be surplussed from future non-EU deals post-Brexit. No serious economist would abuse the figures in this way, only those who have been assigned an agenda by their employer (institute/thinktank).


I linked a serious piece saying the UK's net contribution last year was around 9 billion sterling annually. Or let's call it net loss.

Here's an official government source which again confirms the UK loses more than it receives, to the tune of 8-11 billion pounds (net) depending on how you calculate. They don't consider VAT trade-savings because those figures don't belong here:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/gove...les/theukcontributiontotheeubudget/2017-10-31

 

[zzr45]

Also:

This is why I’m convinced that the whole pull of social media in terms of bots/astroturfing is overrated in elections. I’m always dubious of Twitter folk that claim to have a personal line on anything. When you see it repeated it really does become meaningless.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Which serious economists? Who decides how that money is spent? And in what way does the UK get back more than it puts in? You referring to VAT-savings due to in-EU trading? That doesn't count, clearly. But sounds like that's what you mean when you write by virtue of our membership of the EU.

Theoritical trade savings can't be used in any serious argument about numbers until we know what kind of deal is in place post-Brexit regarding VAT within EU trade, and what could be surplussed from future non-EU deals post-Brexit. No serious economist would abuse the figures in this way, only those who have been assigned an agenda by their employer (institute/thinktank).


I linked a serious piece saying the UK's net contribution last year was around 9 billion sterling annually. Or let's call it net loss.

Here's an official government source which again confirms the UK loses more than it receives, to the tune of 8-11 billion pounds (net) depending on how you calculate. They don't consider VAT trade-savings because those figures don't belong here:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/gove...les/theukcontributiontotheeubudget/2017-10-31

It's been gone over what must be a hundred times in the EU thread. You'll have to forgive me if I'm disinclined to dig out the same links a 101st time. Work to do and all that.

 

[dholliday]

Thousands of patients die waiting for beds in hospitals – study

Doctors’ report finds 5,449 deaths since 2016 followed delayed admission to A&E

www.theguardian.com

"They concluded that the deaths are entirely and solely caused by the length of wait and not by the patient’s condition."

But so long as it hasn't affected me personally, it must be that fake news again

it's only fair to tag in the person you're referring to in your hyperlink:

@roydo

 

[dholliday]

It's been gone over what must be a hundred times in the EU thread. You'll have to forgive me if I'm disinclined to dig out the same links a 101st time. Work to do and all that.

Well, then i'm hardly convinced by your argument seen as I'm using both official and respected independent sources.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Well, then i'm hardly convinced by your argument seen as I'm using both official and respected independent sources.

I wouldn't have expected you to be convinced anyway to be honest, which is partly why I'm disinclined to put the effort in (again).

 

[abelard]

Which serious economists? Who decides how that money is spent? And in what way does the UK get back more than it puts in? You referring to VAT-savings due to in-EU trading? That doesn't count, clearly. But sounds like that's what you mean when you write by virtue of our membership of the EU.

Theoritical trade savings can't be used in any serious argument about numbers until we know what kind of deal is in place post-Brexit regarding VAT within EU trade, and what could be surplussed from future non-EU deals post-Brexit. No serious economist would abuse the figures in this way, only those who have been assigned an agenda by their employer (institute/thinktank).


I linked a serious piece saying the UK's net contribution last year was around 9 billion sterling annually. Or let's call it net loss.

Here's an official government source which again confirms the UK loses more than it receives, to the tune of 8-11 billion pounds (net) depending on how you calculate. They don't consider VAT trade-savings because those figures don't belong here:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/gove...les/theukcontributiontotheeubudget/2017-10-31

One of the media's bigger failings in covering Brexit is the inability to convey just how little all the EU countries actually devote to EU funding.

£20 billion (the approximate UK contribution) is slightly more than pocket change, about 2% of total UK government spending. It is, relatively speaking, not that hard to find £20 billion lying about.

By contrast, UK exports to the EU were £291 billion and UK imports were £357 billion - all of which are called into question by leaving the customs union.

Meanwhile, whereas UK exports to the EU represent 45% of total exports, trade with the US represents 2.5% of the total. So when a country arbitrarily tears up the legal basis for 45% of its trade, and then seeks to make up the gap by the end of 2020 with a single alternative trade partner, just about every last horror show outlined here becomes plausible, and many of them are certain just to be able to get a deal signed.

Fussing over £20 billion here and there is an irrelevance, and the idea (apparently still widely held) that this alone is preventing us from funding the NHS properly is a total misunderstanding of how both government spending, the UK economy, and domestic politics in Britain actually work.

 

[dholliday]

I wouldn't have expected you to be convinced anyway to be honest, which is partly why I'm disinclined to put the effort in (again).

if it was just me spouting, you may have a point...but i'm backing up hard numbers with serious sources. If there's no convincing counter-source, then objectively there's no convincing counter-argument.

 

[dholliday]

One of the media's bigger failings in covering Brexit is the inability to convey just how little all the EU countries actually devote to EU funding.

£20 billion (the approximate UK contribution) is slightly more than pocket change, about 2% of total UK government spending. It is, relatively speaking, not that hard to find £20 billion lying about.

By contrast, UK exports to the EU were £291 billion and UK imports were £357 billion - all of which are called into question by leaving the customs union.

Meanwhile, whereas UK exports to the EU represent 45% of total exports, trade with the US represents 2.5% of the total. So when a country arbitrarily tears up the legal basis for 45% of its trade, and then seeks to make up the gap by the end of 2020 with a single alternative trade partner, just about every last horror show outlined here becomes plausible, and many of them are certain just to be able to get a deal signed.

Fussing over £20 billion here and there is an irrelevance, and the idea (apparently still widely held) that this alone is preventing us from funding the NHS properly is a total misunderstanding of how both government spending, the UK economy, and domestic politics in Britain actually work.

I've bolded the fundamental problem with your argument. Called into question by whom exactly? You merely link an Intercept journalist (note: not an economist even) who specialises in writing hitpieces against rightwing/conservative politics.

So that's your guy. We're gonna need more than that. We need a convincing source to tell us EU-trade with UK will be severely hamstrung post-Brexit (remember, Boris has got a deal now).

With a deal in place where EU-trade continues as it were, plus deals are done with non-EU states, you could just as theoritically be looking at an economic boon for the UK. As I said before, we can't and shouldn't include current export/import figures when discussing net-contributions to the EU if we are not prepared to include future export/import figures. That would be extremely biased and unprofessional abuse of numbers, which any serious economist would balk at. You don't get to pick and choose which numbers best suit your argument, you have to look at the whole picture.

And if £20 billion annually isn't a lot of money (it is, actually) then why so much fuss over the 350m-per-week bus? That's roughly the same figure, yet it was villified by the anti-Brexit commentariat as being grossly inflated (when it wasn't).

This saving can indeed be used to improve the NHS should the government choose to divert the funds so.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

if it was just me spouting, you may have a point...but i'm backing up hard numbers with serious sources. If there's no convincing counter-source, then objectively there's no convincing counter-argument.

That you have found, not that exist.

 

[Deleted member 28206]

This is why I’m convinced that the whole pull of social media in terms of bots/astroturfing is overrated in elections. I’m always dubious of Twitter folk that claim to have a personal line on anything. When you see it repeated it really does become meaningless.

As you should be. Politics is a filthy game.

 

[dholliday]

That you have found, not that exist.

i.e. I haven't found them, therefore they must exist.

That isn't the kind of logic I subscribe to. Seems more faith-based than factual.

 

[davmaher]

Körperschaftsteuer is also from profit, but it's for limited companies (corporations) and the taxes go to the Bund (national-level tax collection) while the Gewerbesteuer is for all companies and goes to the Gemeinde (regional tax office).

Do UK limited companies only have the one type of profit-level tax?

It's the same here as far as limited companies are concerned, they only pay Corporation Tax as far as I know and yes, Corporation Tax is the only profit related tax they have. I think they used to have a separate Capital Gains Tax for profits on sales of any assets, but this has been rolled into Corporation Tax also.

 

[Kurt.]

Cannot to this day see how Rayner is impressive. To me she always comes across like a straggler from the Twisted Wheel. We need people able to hold an argument rather than repeat well rehearsed party lines for God's sake.

Yeah just repeating stupid tag lines such as..

Oven ready
Unleash potential
Get Brexit done

 

[Bruce Wayne]

i.e. I haven't found them, therefore they must exist.

That isn't the kind of logic I subscribe to. Seems more faith-based than factual.

Not at all. As I said, there have been dozens of papers on the economic implications of Brexit (and indeed on Britain's EU membership). I don't have time to dig them out for you today, but that doesn't mean they don't exist, merely that you haven't found them.