Might be that the proportion of non-EU immigration that is spouse/family visas is significantly higher?
Good shout.
Perhaps also worth noting the age differences; EU immigration seems to be predominantly younger (hence the Barista example) and of working age. Non-EU immigration may involve more individuals who originally came here to work and have since made it their home, and settled down to a pensionable age?
I'm still curious about the figures though, as it's quite an interesting thought.
Yes, I think it is there to see if you research it. The exact amount varies depending on when - but all studies will show EU immigrants make a positive net contribution and a higher one than non EU ones - overall that is. I'm not making an argument against non EU immigration by the way. That is for small minded people to do! Of course there are going to be negative and postive contributors and my point is an overall one.
A recent study from University College London estimated the benefits of EU immigration to the country of being £2b per anum. I have quickly googled below to illustrate the point. There are probably better examples but you get the idea.
Excellent post, if you don't mind me saying. I actually don't mind Yvette Cooper, certainly compared to the others you mentioned. Not sure she'd be popular with the centre ground voters though. Who else is there though?
Cooper is OK, but she doesn't have the stature at this stage to do tbe job needed.
I am talking here about someone who can come in and hit the ground running and give May a genuine challenge immediately.
I'm afraid that isn't happening!
There has been a pretty brutal assessment of the state of the French Socialist party from its leadership this morning after its candidate, Benoît Hamon, polled just 6%. "We are in a phase of decomposition, demolition, deconstruction," said Valls. "We didn't do the work - intellectual, ideological and political - on what the left is, and we paid the price."
And that is where the UK left is today. Le Pen raised her vote by 5% over five years - Macron bailed from the Socialist Party 12 months ago and travelled from 0 to 24% in a year.
Le Pen is tipped to unify the country behind Macron and he will poll perhaps 60% in the second round. In contrast, the combined total of Lib Dems and Labour is now at 36% as opposed to Conservative + UKIP = 55%.
Take a look at the evolution of French politics - perhaps that shows a way forward?
I think that's the point Blair is making, the challenge to right-wing Conservatism - which is VERY different to what was on offer under Cameron - cannot come from the far-left, it has to come from the centre as it has with Macron.
The point is can Blair - or someone else - do that from a new party or do they need the Labour Party to do it as a vehicle, or perhaps via the Lib Dems?
I think the key thing to remember is that you really don't need the same sort of formal party structures that you did in the past because of the way that technology allows you to now organise on a national level - this was unthinkable even 20 years ago.
The easiest way to do it would be through the Labour Party - but the left wing nutters have taken over the place and they won't go easily, especially not for Blair.
I think the time is rapidly approaching for a new centerist party akin to what Macron has done in France.
The Tories, aided by our press have done a brilliant job in making Labour, as a brand, so toxic that even those groups who traditionally and historically vote for them feel unable to. And in electing the wrong Miliband brother and then Corbyn Labour effectively and entirely foreseeably handed power to the Tories for a decade or more. Momentum, etc may be happy with having their man in place but ultimately it won't get Labour elected and therefore won't be able to carry out the left wing/progressive/loony whatever you want to call them policies it, and many voters, would like to see.
It's time for a fresh start imo and I can see the likes of Dan Jarvis, Chukka Umanna, Jess Philips, etc seeing the outcome of our own election and that across the channel as providing the impetus to do so.
So, Labour had absolutely nothing to do with their own current omnishambles?
There are (for many - most?) currently 260 working days a year. Less, eight current bank holidays and a minimum of 20 days paid holiday. Then, there's sickies. Stats for that vary from between four to seven days. Let's say five. 260 less current days off equals 227 days. So another four bank holidays equates to just a little under 2% of everyones' working time. Employers will therefore have to increase prices by 2%, reduce employee numbers by 2%, wait for employee productivity to improve by 2% or go bust putting everyone out of work. So, (apart from a free lunch) there is no such thing as a free lunch. This is what Corbyn and his istas don't seem to either understand and/or care about.
We are in a market economy competing with mainly Europe but we have the lowest number of public holidays in Europe and only Mexico are worse worldwide. Additionally UK companies benefit from the highest levels of unpaid overtime in Europe. I believe the non-religious public holidays also boost spending in the economy.
Yes, I think it is there to see if you research it. The exact amount varies depending on when - but all studies will show EU immigrants make a positive net contribution and a higher one than non EU ones - overall that is. I'm not making an argument against non EU immigration by the way. That is for small minded people to do! Of course there are going to be negative and postive contributors and my point is an overall one.
A recent study from University College London estimated the benefits of EU immigration to the country of being £2b per anum. I have quickly googled below to illustrate the point. There are probably better examples but you get the idea.
I think the numbers are currently pretty even but historically non EU immigration has been higher numbers wise.
I think if you do some more research you will find that no one contributes taxes sufficient to cover what they take out in pubic services and welfare. Just look at tax receipts and then look at public spending on welfare and services. On average we take six times more than we pay in taxes. Less than 50% of tax revenues come from income tax and NI, and of that total it was 1% of the population that contributed 27% of tax receipts. I'm no maths expert but something doesn't quite add up.
If you do some more research you will see that the discrepancy is because the £2bn figure comes from HMRC for the difference between tax receipts and in-work benefits processed through HMRC such as child tax credits and marriage allowances. In no way is it showing that immigrants make a net positive contribution, since no one in the UK pays more than they consume in public services. If the working population really did contribute more than they consumed we would have no deficit and would not need to service the deficit with government debt.
It's simply the only accurate number which could be produced, but the value of the number in demonstrating consumption of public services is zero.
Immigration need not be an issue as long as it is acknowledged that it will mean an increase in public borrowing unless immigration creates growth in GDP at faster rate than services are consumed. Comparing consumption of in work benefits against tax revenue and suggesting it proves we obtain a net gain from immigration is the Remain equivalent of £350m going to the NHS.
The truth is that we need immigration in the short term to fill labour vacancies and it will benefit the economy in the long run, but will create a short term deficit requiring an increase in government borrowing to finance demands on education, health and housing. If we don't want to increase borrowing then the corollary is we need to reduce immigration but without sacrificing GDP growth, and that's what, whoever is in power, needs to grapple with.
You can't trust Labour to use borrowings wisely and Tories will fight against increasing borrowings even if they know where it needs to be spent.
Yes, I think it is there to see if you research it. The exact amount varies depending on when - but all studies will show EU immigrants make a positive net contribution and a higher one than non EU ones - overall that is. I'm not making an argument against non EU immigration by the way. That is for small minded people to do! Of course there are going to be negative and postive contributors and my point is an overall one.
A recent study from University College London estimated the benefits of EU immigration to the country of being £2b per anum. I have quickly googled below to illustrate the point. There are probably better examples but you get the idea.
I think the numbers are currently pretty even but historically non EU immigration has been higher numbers wise.
........Comparing consumption of in work benefits against tax revenue and suggesting it proves we obtain a net gain from immigration is the Remain equivalent of £350m going to the NHS.
"I think if you do some more research you will find that no one contributes taxes sufficient to cover what they take out in pubic services and welfare. Just look at tax receipts and then look at public spending on welfare and services. On average we take six times more than we pay in taxes. Less than 50% of tax revenues come from income tax and NI, and of that total it was 1% of the population that contributed 27% of tax receipts. I'm no maths expert but something doesn't quite add up.
If you do some more research you will see that the discrepancy is because the £2bn figure comes from HMRC for the difference between tax receipts and in-work benefits processed through HMRC such as child tax credits and marriage allowances. In no way is it showing that immigrants make a net positive contribution, since no one in the UK pays more than they consume in public services. If the working population really did contribute more than they consumed we would have no deficit and would not need to service the deficit with government debt.
It's simply the only accurate number which could be produced, but the value of the number in demonstrating consumption of public services is zero.
Immigration need not be an issue as long as it is acknowledged that it will mean an increase in public borrowing unless immigration creates growth in GDP at faster rate than services are consumed. Comparing consumption of in work benefits against tax revenue and suggesting it proves we obtain a net gain from immigration is the Remain equivalent of £350m going to the NHS."
Literally no one of note would calculate net contribution per person like this. Hence why all official and academic sources will generally use the model of comparing taxes paid compared to benefits drawn. Suggesting that this is, in fact, how this figure is produced is the whatever equivalent of Turkey joining the EU in order to be a conduit for 100 million Muslims to swarm into the UK.
"The truth is that we need immigration in the short term to fill labour vacancies and it will benefit the economy in the long run, but will create a short term deficit requiring an increase in government borrowing to finance demands on education, health and housing. If we don't want to increase borrowing then the corollary is we need to reduce immigration but without sacrificing GDP growth, and that's what, whoever is in power, needs to grapple with."
EU migrants are, generally, net contributors compared to UK citizens, if you compare the average of each. EU migrants will usually be in work, paying taxes, not drawing benefits, and when they first migrate here, they usually do not bring children or elderly parents with them, meaning there is no strain on education or health or care or pensions. EU migrants are also likely to return to their country of origin in order to have children or to retire, meaning that they usually do not in the future put strain on public services. This is obviously not always the case, but say a migrant from Austria is more likely to go to Austria to raise a family or retire than a UK citizen. The point is, generally speaking, a migrant will not have had thousands of pounds already spent on him due to growing up here, and he is less likely to go from being a net contributor to a net recipient. The notion that the Government has to increase borrowing for every working migrant is utterly false.
"You can't trust Labour to use borrowings wisely and Tories will fight against increasing borrowings even if they know where it needs to be spent."
Except the Tories have successfully managed to both increase borrowing and worsen our debt-to-GDP ratio since coming into office. The Tories have slashed public spending in areas which has had knock on effects on our productivity and failed to invest in areas that would help increase our productivity. If you can't trust Labour then fair enough but don't labour under the illusion that the Tories represent the sound economic choice, because their record says otherwise.
"You can't trust Labour to use borrowings wisely and Tories will fight against increasing borrowings even if they know where it needs to be spent." Dippenhall. I'll repeat the answer I gave somtime ago. National debt after Brown bailed out the banks. £700bn. After 7 years of Osbournes austerity £1848bn. How many more years of Tory cuts need we endure before the Tories spend their borrowings wisely?
There are (for many - most?) currently 260 working days a year. Less, eight current bank holidays and a minimum of 20 days paid holiday. Then, there's sickies. Stats for that vary from between four to seven days. Let's say five. 260 less current days off equals 227 days. So another four bank holidays equates to just a little under 2% of everyones' working time. Employers will therefore have to increase prices by 2%, reduce employee numbers by 2%, wait for employee productivity to improve by 2% or go bust putting everyone out of work. So, (apart from a free lunch) there is no such thing as a free lunch. This is what Corbyn and his istas don't seem to either understand and/or care about.
We are in a market economy competing with mainly Europe but we have the lowest number of public holidays in Europe and only Mexico are worse worldwide. Additionally UK companies benefit from the highest levels of unpaid overtime in Europe. I believe the non-religious public holidays also boost spending in the economy.
Yes, I think it is there to see if you research it. The exact amount varies depending on when - but all studies will show EU immigrants make a positive net contribution and a higher one than non EU ones - overall that is. I'm not making an argument against non EU immigration by the way. That is for small minded people to do! Of course there are going to be negative and postive contributors and my point is an overall one.
A recent study from University College London estimated the benefits of EU immigration to the country of being £2b per anum. I have quickly googled below to illustrate the point. There are probably better examples but you get the idea.
I think the numbers are currently pretty even but historically non EU immigration has been higher numbers wise.
I think if you do some more research you will find that no one contributes taxes sufficient to cover what they take out in pubic services and welfare.
I'm not sure that can be right, someone on £1m a year paying over £400k in tax?
I'd hazard a guess that my P60 sum in Tax and NI was more than enough last tax year to cover my use of public services (I get no welfare) and more than likely my wife and two daughters.
There are (for many - most?) currently 260 working days a year. Less, eight current bank holidays and a minimum of 20 days paid holiday. Then, there's sickies. Stats for that vary from between four to seven days. Let's say five. 260 less current days off equals 227 days. So another four bank holidays equates to just a little under 2% of everyones' working time. Employers will therefore have to increase prices by 2%, reduce employee numbers by 2%, wait for employee productivity to improve by 2% or go bust putting everyone out of work. So, (apart from a free lunch) there is no such thing as a free lunch. This is what Corbyn and his istas don't seem to either understand and/or care about.
We are in a market economy competing with mainly Europe but we have the lowest number of public holidays in Europe and only Mexico are worse worldwide. Additionally UK companies benefit from the highest levels of unpaid overtime in Europe. I believe the non-religious public holidays also boost spending in the economy.
WTF, no way is that right.
It's right. What isn't highlighted is that Hungary and the Netherlands also have 8 public holidays whilst Germany, Switzerland, Ireland, UAE , Puerto Rico and a few others have one more.
Yes, I think it is there to see if you research it. The exact amount varies depending on when - but all studies will show EU immigrants make a positive net contribution and a higher one than non EU ones - overall that is. I'm not making an argument against non EU immigration by the way. That is for small minded people to do! Of course there are going to be negative and postive contributors and my point is an overall one.
A recent study from University College London estimated the benefits of EU immigration to the country of being £2b per anum. I have quickly googled below to illustrate the point. There are probably better examples but you get the idea.
I think the numbers are currently pretty even but historically non EU immigration has been higher numbers wise.
I think if you do some more research you will find that no one contributes taxes sufficient to cover what they take out in pubic services and welfare.
I'm not sure that can be right, someone on £1m a year paying over £400k in tax?
I'd hazard a guess that my P60 sum in Tax and NI was more than enough last tax year to cover my use of public services (I get no welfare) and more than likely my wife and two daughters.
I guess it depends what's being taken into the calculation. So over and above things like the NHS there's the police, the armed forces (both of which are working to protect you all the time), fire brigade, schools etc, then there's the basic infrastructure of the country - roads, bridges etc.
No idea how much tax you pay but I'd hazard a guess that when you take into account all the things that our taxes cover most get back more than they pay in.
There are (for many - most?) currently 260 working days a year. Less, eight current bank holidays and a minimum of 20 days paid holiday. Then, there's sickies. Stats for that vary from between four to seven days. Let's say five. 260 less current days off equals 227 days. So another four bank holidays equates to just a little under 2% of everyones' working time. Employers will therefore have to increase prices by 2%, reduce employee numbers by 2%, wait for employee productivity to improve by 2% or go bust putting everyone out of work. So, (apart from a free lunch) there is no such thing as a free lunch. This is what Corbyn and his istas don't seem to either understand and/or care about.
We are in a market economy competing with mainly Europe but we have the lowest number of public holidays in Europe and only Mexico are worse worldwide. Additionally UK companies benefit from the highest levels of unpaid overtime in Europe. I believe the non-religious public holidays also boost spending in the economy.
Mexico has 12 national statutory holidays a year, plus a few odd regional things. In any event, the important comparison is surely whether they are statutorily PAID days off? So if you compare things with our actual competitors and take into account many UK employers offer more than 20 days leave things begin to look very different. In the US and Japan there is no such thing as statutory pay for public holidays and almost universally an employee will start off with 10 days paid vacation. After years of service workers might get up to the magic total of 20 days. But not more in Japan. The Chinese get 11 days public holiday but probably have to work for years to get their annual leave entitlement up to 15. The Germans are very similar to us; the French get a couple of days more.
BUT, and it's a big but, according to the ONS, the Government's own statisticians, the latest figures (2015) show that we are below the other G7 countries on productivity by 16.6%. Below the US by a staggering 27.3%. The only one we beat is Japan, by 7.7%. (But I suspect that their figure is hugely distorted by their vast army of small scale businesses including smallholding farmers.)
n any event, I suspect that the big bad bosses you highlight would just shave a few days off everyone's annual leave entitlement to compensate.
My last word on public holidays. They are a bloody nuisance. Why can't we just be given an extra 8 days off or whatever which we can take when we like? (As long as they are taken as single days.)
"You can't trust Labour to use borrowings wisely and Tories will fight against increasing borrowings even if they know where it needs to be spent." Dippenhall. I'll repeat the answer I gave somtime ago. National debt after Brown bailed out the banks. £700bn. After 7 years of Osbournes austerity £1848bn. How many more years of Tory cuts need we endure before the Tories spend their borrowings wisely?
National debt is £1.8 Trillion ? A graph to show rise over last 30 years would be good. How did it get to £1.8 trillion so quickly ? It sounds bad, why does no one ever talk about it & go on about the balance of payments continually. How important is that level of debt to the economy ?
Yes, I think it is there to see if you research it. The exact amount varies depending on when - but all studies will show EU immigrants make a positive net contribution and a higher one than non EU ones - overall that is. I'm not making an argument against non EU immigration by the way. That is for small minded people to do! Of course there are going to be negative and postive contributors and my point is an overall one.
A recent study from University College London estimated the benefits of EU immigration to the country of being £2b per anum. I have quickly googled below to illustrate the point. There are probably better examples but you get the idea.
I think the numbers are currently pretty even but historically non EU immigration has been higher numbers wise.
I think if you do some more research you will find that no one contributes taxes sufficient to cover what they take out in pubic services and welfare.
I'm not sure that can be right, someone on £1m a year paying over £400k in tax?
I'd hazard a guess that my P60 sum in Tax and NI was more than enough last tax year to cover my use of public services (I get no welfare) and more than likely my wife and two daughters.
I guess it depends what's being taken into the calculation. So over and above things like the NHS there's the police, the armed forces (both of which are working to protect you all the time), fire brigade, schools etc, then there's the basic infrastructure of the country - roads, bridges etc.
No idea how much tax you pay but I'd hazard a guess that when you take into account all the things that our taxes cover most get back more than they pay in.
Agree but the comment was no one pays enough in to cover what they take out which can't be true or we may as well all give up now.
I get a lovely report each year as to where my tax goes, from memory it doesn't show armed forces but I do pay a 5 figure sum for each of benefits and NHS....
Not complaining but to say no one pays enough is clearly wrong (but it may be the majority)
Excellent post, if you don't mind me saying. I actually don't mind Yvette Cooper, certainly compared to the others you mentioned. Not sure she'd be popular with the centre ground voters though. Who else is there though?
Cooper is OK, but she doesn't have the stature at this stage to do tbe job needed.
I am talking here about someone who can come in and hit the ground running and give May a genuine challenge immediately.
I'm afraid that isn't happening!
There has been a pretty brutal assessment of the state of the French Socialist party from its leadership this morning after its candidate, Benoît Hamon, polled just 6%. "We are in a phase of decomposition, demolition, deconstruction," said Valls. "We didn't do the work - intellectual, ideological and political - on what the left is, and we paid the price."
And that is where the UK left is today. Le Pen raised her vote by 5% over five years - Macron bailed from the Socialist Party 12 months ago and travelled from 0 to 24% in a year.
Le Pen is tipped to unify the country behind Macron and he will poll perhaps 60% in the second round. In contrast, the combined total of Lib Dems and Labour is now at 36% as opposed to Conservative + UKIP = 55%.
Take a look at the evolution of French politics - perhaps that shows a way forward?
I think that's the point Blair is making, the challenge to right-wing Conservatism - which is VERY different to what was on offer under Cameron - cannot come from the far-left, it has to come from the centre as it has with Macron.
The point is can Blair - or someone else - do that from a new party or do they need the Labour Party to do it as a vehicle, or perhaps via the Lib Dems?
I think the key thing to remember is that you really don't need the same sort of formal party structures that you did in the past because of the way that technology allows you to now organise on a national level - this was unthinkable even 20 years ago.
The easiest way to do it would be through the Labour Party - but the left wing nutters have taken over the place and they won't go easily, especially not for Blair.
I think the time is rapidly approaching for a new centerist party akin to what Macron has done in France.
The Tories, aided by our press have done a brilliant job in making Labour, as a brand, so toxic that even those groups who traditionally and historically vote for them feel unable to. And in electing the wrong Miliband brother and then Corbyn Labour effectively and entirely foreseeably handed power to the Tories for a decade or more. Momentum, etc may be happy with having their man in place but ultimately it won't get Labour elected and therefore won't be able to carry out the left wing/progressive/loony whatever you want to call them policies it, and many voters, would like to see.
It's time for a fresh start imo and I can see the likes of Dan Jarvis, Chukka Umanna, Jess Philips, etc seeing the outcome of our own election and that across the channel as providing the impetus to do so.
So, Labour had absolutely nothing to do with their own current omnishambles?
It was the Tories and the press? Just wow!
Eh? Strawman argument once again.
You clearly chose to overlook the next bit where I also fairly and squarely blamed the Labour leadership choices.
And anyone who believes the media does not play a significant role in the perception of political parties and their leaders is only kidding themselves.
Yes, I think it is there to see if you research it. The exact amount varies depending on when - but all studies will show EU immigrants make a positive net contribution and a higher one than non EU ones - overall that is. I'm not making an argument against non EU immigration by the way. That is for small minded people to do! Of course there are going to be negative and postive contributors and my point is an overall one.
A recent study from University College London estimated the benefits of EU immigration to the country of being £2b per anum. I have quickly googled below to illustrate the point. There are probably better examples but you get the idea.
I think the numbers are currently pretty even but historically non EU immigration has been higher numbers wise.
I think if you do some more research you will find that no one contributes taxes sufficient to cover what they take out in pubic services and welfare. Just look at tax receipts and then look at public spending on welfare and services. On average we take six times more than we pay in taxes. Less than 50% of tax revenues come from income tax and NI, and of that total it was 1% of the population that contributed 27% of tax receipts. I'm no maths expert but something doesn't quite add up.
If you do some more research you will see that the discrepancy is because the £2bn figure comes from HMRC for the difference between tax receipts and in-work benefits processed through HMRC such as child tax credits and marriage allowances. In no way is it showing that immigrants make a net positive contribution, since no one in the UK pays more than they consume in public services. If the working population really did contribute more than they consumed we would have no deficit and would not need to service the deficit with government debt.
It's simply the only accurate number which could be produced, but the value of the number in demonstrating consumption of public services is zero.
Immigration need not be an issue as long as it is acknowledged that it will mean an increase in public borrowing unless immigration creates growth in GDP at faster rate than services are consumed. Comparing consumption of in work benefits against tax revenue and suggesting it proves we obtain a net gain from immigration is the Remain equivalent of £350m going to the NHS.
The truth is that we need immigration in the short term to fill labour vacancies and it will benefit the economy in the long run, but will create a short term deficit requiring an increase in government borrowing to finance demands on education, health and housing. If we don't want to increase borrowing then the corollary is we need to reduce immigration but without sacrificing GDP growth, and that's what, whoever is in power, needs to grapple with.
You can't trust Labour to use borrowings wisely and Tories will fight against increasing borrowings even if they know where it needs to be spent.
This is rubbish -tired old Tory BS. A sweeping statement with no facts behind it, then somne technical drivel to make it look good. The truth on EU immigration from actual studies and research is that EU immigrants contribute £1.34 for every £1 spent on them.
The bottom line has to be that we won't agree anydeal that doesn't include the single market. This position doesn't weaken us, as it isn't in the EU's interest to let the negotiations drag on. If we don't stop May now, we won't be able to put the clocks back.
Yes, I think it is there to see if you research it. The exact amount varies depending on when - but all studies will show EU immigrants make a positive net contribution and a higher one than non EU ones - overall that is. I'm not making an argument against non EU immigration by the way. That is for small minded people to do! Of course there are going to be negative and postive contributors and my point is an overall one.
A recent study from University College London estimated the benefits of EU immigration to the country of being £2b per anum. I have quickly googled below to illustrate the point. There are probably better examples but you get the idea.
I think the numbers are currently pretty even but historically non EU immigration has been higher numbers wise.
I think if you do some more research you will find that no one contributes taxes sufficient to cover what they take out in pubic services and welfare.
I'm not sure that can be right, someone on £1m a year paying over £400k in tax?
I'd hazard a guess that my P60 sum in Tax and NI was more than enough last tax year to cover my use of public services (I get no welfare) and more than likely my wife and two daughters.
I guess it depends what's being taken into the calculation. So over and above things like the NHS there's the police, the armed forces (both of which are working to protect you all the time), fire brigade, schools etc, then there's the basic infrastructure of the country - roads, bridges etc.
No idea how much tax you pay but I'd hazard a guess that when you take into account all the things that our taxes cover most get back more than they pay in.
Agree but the comment was no one pays enough in to cover what they take out which can't be true or we may as well all give up now.
I get a lovely report each year as to where my tax goes, from memory it doesn't show armed forces but I do pay a 5 figure sum for each of benefits and NHS....
Not complaining but to say no one pays enough is clearly wrong (but it may be the majority)
Your assumption is that personal tax is what pays for public services. You ignore VAT, Corporation Tax, fuel duty, business rates, council tax etc etc. I will reword my comment - if you take total public services expenditure and divide by UK population a minuscule number of individuals might pay their share of the cost of public services through personal tax. The only way the books are balanced year to year is through borrowing or a budget surplus. Borrowing has increased because public spending has increased as a faster rate than revenues, depressed as a result of depressed wages. The failure of government has been to find a policy that will boost wages.
On average our annual spending has exceeded annual revenue by 4% over the last 20 years. Last year it was a 3% hole to be filled. When Tony Blair took over in 2007 the Tories were running a budget surplus of a positive 6% of GDP. It then increased rapidly to a negative 6% culminating in a negative 10%. The Tories turned this back to a 10% positive surplus in 2009.
The inability to turn the current 3% gap into a positive budget surplus is because public spending has continued to increase, not fall, and wages and tax revenues have not increased as every Chancellor would expect in a period of economic growth.
Using national debt figures as party political ammunition is playground stuff. I don't necessarily disagree with increasing borrowing to invest in services, if it's invested wisely. Either you don't borrow and have to raise more in taxes today, or you borrow and the next generation pays for it tomorrow out of the resulting increase in GDP, or the enjoyment of better services. If politics wan't such a game, the debate would be around proving the benefits from the borrowing, not how big is it.
Remind me which party donated ££££££££££££££££££ to construction firms and banks to become landlords of schools and hospitals passing on to the taxpayer the mortgage interest costs at credit card levels of interest - why - because they were already embarrassed by the rate of increase in national debt and needed to hide the massive increase in national debt they were passing on to the next generation. An example of Labour's poor record on making economic decisions and needing to use creative accounting to try and hide government spending from the electorate.
Given Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were able to do such a good job on the economy and management of debt, we should all get behind Jezza who has far more support from Labour members than Blair and Brown could ever dream of, they can't all be wrong, so let's all vote Labour, no more Tory bullshit.
I know these figures are all rubbish, @MuttleyCAFC is going to provide the alternative ones to prove it.
The bottom line has to be that we won't agree anydeal that doesn't include the single market. This position doesn't weaken us, as it isn't in the EU's interest to let the negotiations drag on. If we don't stop May now, we won't be able to put the clocks back.
Freedom of movement will be the big sticking point on any deal including single market. Can't see the 27 budging on that.
I don't see May selling the retention of free movement to the rabid Brexit supporting wing of the party or to the nine out of ten Brexit voters who voted predominantly of that issue.
Yes, I think it is there to see if you research it. The exact amount varies depending on when - but all studies will show EU immigrants make a positive net contribution and a higher one than non EU ones - overall that is. I'm not making an argument against non EU immigration by the way. That is for small minded people to do! Of course there are going to be negative and postive contributors and my point is an overall one.
A recent study from University College London estimated the benefits of EU immigration to the country of being £2b per anum. I have quickly googled below to illustrate the point. There are probably better examples but you get the idea.
I think the numbers are currently pretty even but historically non EU immigration has been higher numbers wise.
I think if you do some more research you will find that no one contributes taxes sufficient to cover what they take out in pubic services and welfare.
I'm not sure that can be right, someone on £1m a year paying over £400k in tax?
I'd hazard a guess that my P60 sum in Tax and NI was more than enough last tax year to cover my use of public services (I get no welfare) and more than likely my wife and two daughters.
I guess it depends what's being taken into the calculation. So over and above things like the NHS there's the police, the armed forces (both of which are working to protect you all the time), fire brigade, schools etc, then there's the basic infrastructure of the country - roads, bridges etc.
No idea how much tax you pay but I'd hazard a guess that when you take into account all the things that our taxes cover most get back more than they pay in.
Agree but the comment was no one pays enough in to cover what they take out which can't be true or we may as well all give up now.
I get a lovely report each year as to where my tax goes, from memory it doesn't show armed forces but I do pay a 5 figure sum for each of benefits and NHS....
Not complaining but to say no one pays enough is clearly wrong (but it may be the majority)
Your assumption is that personal tax is what pays for public services. You ignore VAT, Corporation Tax, fuel duty, business rates, council tax etc etc. I will reword my comment - if you take total public services expenditure and divide by UK population a minuscule number of individuals might pay their share of the cost of public services through personal tax. The only way the books are balanced year to year is through borrowing or a budget surplus. Borrowing has increased because public spending has increased as a faster rate than revenues, depressed as a result of depressed wages. The failure of government has been to find a policy that will boost wages.
On average our annual spending has exceeded annual revenue by 4% over the last 20 years. Last year it was a 3% hole to be filled. When Tony Blair took over in 2007 the Tories were running a budget surplus of a positive 6% of GDP. It then increased rapidly to a negative 6% culminating in a negative 10%. The Tories turned this back to a 10% positive surplus in 2009.
The inability to turn the current 3% gap into a positive budget surplus is because public spending has continued to increase, not fall, and wages and tax revenues have not increased as every Chancellor would expect in a period of economic growth.
Using national debt figures as party political ammunition is playground stuff. I don't necessarily disagree with increasing borrowing to invest in services, if it's invested wisely. Either you don't borrow and have to raise more in taxes today, or you borrow and the next generation pays for it tomorrow out of the resulting increase in GDP, or the enjoyment of better services. If politics wan't such a game, the debate would be around proving the benefits from the borrowing, not how big is it.
Remind me which party donated ££££££££££££££££££ to construction firms and banks to become landlords of schools and hospitals passing on to the taxpayer the mortgage interest costs at credit card levels of interest - why - because they were already embarrassed by the rate of increase in national debt and needed to hide the massive increase in national debt they were passing on to the next generation. An example of Labour's poor record on making economic decisions and needing to use creative accounting to try and hide government spending from the electorate.
Given Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were able to do such a good job on the economy and management of debt, we should all get behind Jezza who has far more support from Labour members than Blair and Brown could ever dream of, they can't all be wrong, so let's all vote Labour, no more Tory bullshit.
I know these figures are all rubbish, @MuttleyCAFC is going to provide the alternative ones to prove it.
I provided the figures which proved that EU immigrants benefit the economy - you went off on a tangent disagreeing with all considered studies. Migrants from other EU countries also contribute by working for our public services, as research from the House of Commons Library shows that 14,789 EU migrants are nurses, midwifes and health visitors. As I said - EU migrants pay £1.34 in taxes for every £1 they receive in state assistance. They do not deserve to be scapegoated by the Tories and used as a political tool, especially as many of them are the doctors and nurses who help keep us all healthy.
Yes, I think it is there to see if you research it. The exact amount varies depending on when - but all studies will show EU immigrants make a positive net contribution and a higher one than non EU ones - overall that is. I'm not making an argument against non EU immigration by the way. That is for small minded people to do! Of course there are going to be negative and postive contributors and my point is an overall one.
A recent study from University College London estimated the benefits of EU immigration to the country of being £2b per anum. I have quickly googled below to illustrate the point. There are probably better examples but you get the idea.
I think the numbers are currently pretty even but historically non EU immigration has been higher numbers wise.
I think if you do some more research you will find that no one contributes taxes sufficient to cover what they take out in pubic services and welfare.
I'm not sure that can be right, someone on £1m a year paying over £400k in tax?
I'd hazard a guess that my P60 sum in Tax and NI was more than enough last tax year to cover my use of public services (I get no welfare) and more than likely my wife and two daughters.
I guess it depends what's being taken into the calculation. So over and above things like the NHS there's the police, the armed forces (both of which are working to protect you all the time), fire brigade, schools etc, then there's the basic infrastructure of the country - roads, bridges etc.
No idea how much tax you pay but I'd hazard a guess that when you take into account all the things that our taxes cover most get back more than they pay in.
Agree but the comment was no one pays enough in to cover what they take out which can't be true or we may as well all give up now.
I get a lovely report each year as to where my tax goes, from memory it doesn't show armed forces but I do pay a 5 figure sum for each of benefits and NHS....
Not complaining but to say no one pays enough is clearly wrong (but it may be the majority)
Your assumption is that personal tax is what pays for public services. You ignore VAT, Corporation Tax, fuel duty, business rates, council tax etc etc. I will reword my comment - if you take total public services expenditure and divide by UK population a minuscule number of individuals might pay their share of the cost of public services through personal tax. The only way the books are balanced year to year is through borrowing or a budget surplus. Borrowing has increased because public spending has increased as a faster rate than revenues, depressed as a result of depressed wages. The failure of government has been to find a policy that will boost wages.
On average our annual spending has exceeded annual revenue by 4% over the last 20 years. Last year it was a 3% hole to be filled. When Tony Blair took over in 2007 the Tories were running a budget surplus of a positive 6% of GDP. It then increased rapidly to a negative 6% culminating in a negative 10%. The Tories turned this back to a 10% positive surplus in 2009.
The inability to turn the current 3% gap into a positive budget surplus is because public spending has continued to increase, not fall, and wages and tax revenues have not increased as every Chancellor would expect in a period of economic growth.
Using national debt figures as party political ammunition is playground stuff. I don't necessarily disagree with increasing borrowing to invest in services, if it's invested wisely. Either you don't borrow and have to raise more in taxes today, or you borrow and the next generation pays for it tomorrow out of the resulting increase in GDP, or the enjoyment of better services. If politics wan't such a game, the debate would be around proving the benefits from the borrowing, not how big is it.
Remind me which party donated ££££££££££££££££££ to construction firms and banks to become landlords of schools and hospitals passing on to the taxpayer the mortgage interest costs at credit card levels of interest - why - because they were already embarrassed by the rate of increase in national debt and needed to hide the massive increase in national debt they were passing on to the next generation. An example of Labour's poor record on making economic decisions and needing to use creative accounting to try and hide government spending from the electorate.
Given Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were able to do such a good job on the economy and management of debt, we should all get behind Jezza who has far more support from Labour members than Blair and Brown could ever dream of, they can't all be wrong, so let's all vote Labour, no more Tory bullshit.
I know these figures are all rubbish, @MuttleyCAFC is going to provide the alternative ones to prove it.
I provided the figures which proved that EU immigrants benefit the economy - you went off on a tangent disagreeing with all considered studies.
You quoted a newspaper article giving a figure and mis-stated what the figure represented.
The figure was absolutely 100% correct, it came from HMRC published statistics, not a considered study, I didn't disagree with the figure.
I corrected your misunderstanding of what the figure represented, I apologise if you find correcting your misstatements is tangential or suggests your research is flawed.
Comments
Perhaps also worth noting the age differences; EU immigration seems to be predominantly younger (hence the Barista example) and of working age. Non-EU immigration may involve more individuals who originally came here to work and have since made it their home, and settled down to a pensionable age?
I'm still curious about the figures though, as it's quite an interesting thought.
A recent study from University College London estimated the benefits of EU immigration to the country of being £2b per anum. I have quickly googled below to illustrate the point. There are probably better examples but you get the idea.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11209234/Immigration-from-outside-Europe-cost-120-billion.html
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/18/mass-eu-migration-into-britain-is-actually-good-news-for-uk-economy
I think the numbers are currently pretty even but historically non EU immigration has been higher numbers wise.
It was the Tories and the press? Just wow!
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/24/extremism-killed-wife-jo-cox-death-great-get-together?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
If I get a an extra 4 days off for 4 new bank holidays, I'll have no less work each year, just 4 days less to do it all in.
If you do some more research you will see that the discrepancy is because the £2bn figure comes from HMRC for the difference between tax receipts and in-work benefits processed through HMRC such as child tax credits and marriage allowances. In no way is it showing that immigrants make a net positive contribution, since no one in the UK pays more than they consume in public services. If the working population really did contribute more than they consumed we would have no deficit and would not need to service the deficit with government debt.
It's simply the only accurate number which could be produced, but the value of the number in demonstrating consumption of public services is zero.
Immigration need not be an issue as long as it is acknowledged that it will mean an increase in public borrowing unless immigration creates growth in GDP at faster rate than services are consumed. Comparing consumption of in work benefits against tax revenue and suggesting it proves we obtain a net gain from immigration is the Remain equivalent of £350m going to the NHS.
The truth is that we need immigration in the short term to fill labour vacancies and it will benefit the economy in the long run, but will create a short term deficit requiring an increase in government borrowing to finance demands on education, health and housing. If we don't want to increase borrowing then the corollary is we need to reduce immigration but without sacrificing GDP growth, and that's what, whoever is in power, needs to grapple with.
You can't trust Labour to use borrowings wisely and Tories will fight against increasing borrowings even if they know where it needs to be spent.
"I think if you do some more research you will find that no one contributes taxes sufficient to cover what they take out in pubic services and welfare. Just look at tax receipts and then look at public spending on welfare and services. On average we take six times more than we pay in taxes. Less than 50% of tax revenues come from income tax and NI, and of that total it was 1% of the population that contributed 27% of tax receipts. I'm no maths expert but something doesn't quite add up.
If you do some more research you will see that the discrepancy is because the £2bn figure comes from HMRC for the difference between tax receipts and in-work benefits processed through HMRC such as child tax credits and marriage allowances. In no way is it showing that immigrants make a net positive contribution, since no one in the UK pays more than they consume in public services. If the working population really did contribute more than they consumed we would have no deficit and would not need to service the deficit with government debt.
It's simply the only accurate number which could be produced, but the value of the number in demonstrating consumption of public services is zero.
Immigration need not be an issue as long as it is acknowledged that it will mean an increase in public borrowing unless immigration creates growth in GDP at faster rate than services are consumed. Comparing consumption of in work benefits against tax revenue and suggesting it proves we obtain a net gain from immigration is the Remain equivalent of £350m going to the NHS."
Literally no one of note would calculate net contribution per person like this. Hence why all official and academic sources will generally use the model of comparing taxes paid compared to benefits drawn. Suggesting that this is, in fact, how this figure is produced is the whatever equivalent of Turkey joining the EU in order to be a conduit for 100 million Muslims to swarm into the UK.
"The truth is that we need immigration in the short term to fill labour vacancies and it will benefit the economy in the long run, but will create a short term deficit requiring an increase in government borrowing to finance demands on education, health and housing. If we don't want to increase borrowing then the corollary is we need to reduce immigration but without sacrificing GDP growth, and that's what, whoever is in power, needs to grapple with."
EU migrants are, generally, net contributors compared to UK citizens, if you compare the average of each. EU migrants will usually be in work, paying taxes, not drawing benefits, and when they first migrate here, they usually do not bring children or elderly parents with them, meaning there is no strain on education or health or care or pensions. EU migrants are also likely to return to their country of origin in order to have children or to retire, meaning that they usually do not in the future put strain on public services. This is obviously not always the case, but say a migrant from Austria is more likely to go to Austria to raise a family or retire than a UK citizen. The point is, generally speaking, a migrant will not have had thousands of pounds already spent on him due to growing up here, and he is less likely to go from being a net contributor to a net recipient. The notion that the Government has to increase borrowing for every working migrant is utterly false.
"You can't trust Labour to use borrowings wisely and Tories will fight against increasing borrowings even if they know where it needs to be spent."
Except the Tories have successfully managed to both increase borrowing and worsen our debt-to-GDP ratio since coming into office. The Tories have slashed public spending in areas which has had knock on effects on our productivity and failed to invest in areas that would help increase our productivity. If you can't trust Labour then fair enough but don't labour under the illusion that the Tories represent the sound economic choice, because their record says otherwise.
I'd hazard a guess that my P60 sum in Tax and NI was more than enough last tax year to cover my use of public services (I get no welfare) and more than likely my wife and two daughters.
No idea how much tax you pay but I'd hazard a guess that when you take into account all the things that our taxes cover most get back more than they pay in.
BUT, and it's a big but, according to the ONS, the Government's own statisticians, the latest figures (2015) show that we are below the other G7 countries on productivity by 16.6%. Below the US by a staggering 27.3%. The only one we beat is Japan, by 7.7%. (But I suspect that their figure is hugely distorted by their vast army of small scale businesses including smallholding farmers.)
n any event, I suspect that the big bad bosses you highlight would just shave a few days off everyone's annual leave entitlement to compensate.
My last word on public holidays. They are a bloody nuisance. Why can't we just be given an extra 8 days off or whatever which we can take when we like? (As long as they are taken as single days.)
I get a lovely report each year as to where my tax goes, from memory it doesn't show armed forces but I do pay a 5 figure sum for each of benefits and NHS....
Not complaining but to say no one pays enough is clearly wrong (but it may be the majority)
You clearly chose to overlook the next bit where I also fairly and squarely blamed the Labour leadership choices.
And anyone who believes the media does not play a significant role in the perception of political parties and their leaders is only kidding themselves.
On average our annual spending has exceeded annual revenue by 4% over the last 20 years. Last year it was a 3% hole to be filled. When Tony Blair took over in 2007 the Tories were running a budget surplus of a positive 6% of GDP. It then increased rapidly to a negative 6% culminating in a negative 10%. The Tories turned this back to a 10% positive surplus in 2009.
The inability to turn the current 3% gap into a positive budget surplus is because public spending has continued to increase, not fall, and wages and tax revenues have not increased as every Chancellor would expect in a period of economic growth.
Using national debt figures as party political ammunition is playground stuff. I don't necessarily disagree with increasing borrowing to invest in services, if it's invested wisely. Either you don't borrow and have to raise more in taxes today, or you borrow and the next generation pays for it tomorrow out of the resulting increase in GDP, or the enjoyment of better services. If politics wan't such a game, the debate would be around proving the benefits from the borrowing, not how big is it.
Remind me which party donated ££££££££££££££££££ to construction firms and banks to become landlords of schools and hospitals passing on to the taxpayer the mortgage interest costs at credit card levels of interest - why - because they were already embarrassed by the rate of increase in national debt and needed to hide the massive increase in national debt they were passing on to the next generation. An example of Labour's poor record on making economic decisions and needing to use creative accounting to try and hide government spending from the electorate.
Given Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were able to do such a good job on the economy and management of debt, we should all get behind Jezza who has far more support from Labour members than Blair and Brown could ever dream of, they can't all be wrong, so let's all vote Labour, no more Tory bullshit.
I know these figures are all rubbish, @MuttleyCAFC is going to provide the alternative ones to prove it.
I don't see May selling the retention of free movement to the rabid Brexit supporting wing of the party or to the nine out of ten Brexit voters who voted predominantly of that issue.
The figure was absolutely 100% correct, it came from HMRC published statistics, not a considered study, I didn't disagree with the figure.
I corrected your misunderstanding of what the figure represented, I apologise if you find correcting your misstatements is tangential or suggests your research is flawed.