Consequences Of Brexit [Part 9] Read First Post Before Posting

[El Cid 212]

3 hours ago, Westie1889 said:

Other benefits not considered by the BofE forecast but of great  importance to people are things like pressures on vital infrastructure such as schools, hospitals and housing. The UK was on track for what many felt was in-sustainable population growth.

Even after 2016 we had very high immigration, only COVID can reduce immigration.

Net migration to the UK was estimated to be 270,000 in 2019, down from a peak of 331,000 in the year ending March 2015.

 

[Magilla 510]

13 hours ago, Westie1889 said:

Other benefits not considered by the BofE forecast but of great  importance to people are things like pressures on vital infrastructure such as schools, hospitals and housing. The UK was on track for what many felt was in-sustainable population growth.

...those "people" are going to get a shock, what they're going to get is more of the same but at a higher personal cost.

 

13 hours ago, Westie1889 said:

I do get that some of these pressures could have been solved by government but both Labour and the Tory’s failed so Brexit was a way of people making that choice themselves.

All they've done is replace people who effectively subsidised those systems for those that, in all likelihood, won't.

 

UK population growth will continue unabated.

[Westie1889 0]

On 28/02/2021 at 21:51, Magilla said:

those "people" are going to get a shock, what they're going to get is more of the same but at a higher personal cost.

 

It depends what happens ref: immigration policies and whether this and subsequent governments look for similar migration levels outside of the EU.

EU migration has a very minimal positive economic benefit when based on direct and indirect taxes raised vs what the system has to provide for those migrants and their families.

 

Non-EU migration has a huge net cost so it’s true if we replace EU migrants with non-EU migrants the UK will be significantly worse off.

 

Robert Peston (a remainer) commissioned analysis that showed the net benefit from EU migration was around £5bn over a 5 year period whilst the cost of non-EU migration in the same period was something like £500bn so a huge difference.

 

The key is what type of migration we want and need, low skilled and low wage migration based on the new earnings ceiling will stop or businesses will have to pay higher wages if they want it - a ‘win-win’ in my view for  both UK workers and migrants.

 

The labour market for lower skilled/wage jobs will swing back to a fairer position and one which economists would recognise as a true ‘market’ rather than the previous situation which was distorted massively in the favour of businesses. This resulted in wage deflation for the bottom 30% and abhorrent contract situations where a working person doesn’t know what they are going to earn in a particular week.

 

The other potential longer-term benefit not covered by many commentators is that many if not most of low wage earners do not pay tax or pay very little as they need everything they earn just to survive. Rising wages could tip this balance to the benefit of the Treasury but it will take time.

 

If everything stays the same as during EU membership then I agree what you say would be true based on economic realities, but economies adjust based on opportunities individuals see and government policy.

 

There are lots of opportunities despite what people say, within my own industry I can highlight several where the new tariff regime has given UK importers a distinct cost advantage over those in the EU. It’s a case of people letting the dust settle and then taking advantage of them.

I also accept there will be downsides and losses, but it’s certainly not one-way traffic.

What I do agree on is that prices will rise and we will all need to pay more for the things we buy, especially in the short-term. 
Long-term rising wages should cover this adjustment but in the short-term businesses and the top and middle income tax payers (like myself) will have to be taxed a bit more to help the lower earners make that transition.

[the_bloke 17]

It's important to note that all the headlines about EU migrants putting more into the economy than they take out base their figures on the assumption that they are neither educated nor retire in the UK, so are classed as taxpayers for the entire duration they are in the country. The earnings/expenditure ratio is then compared against a native who is born, educated, works, retires and dies in the UK and surprise(!) 18 years of financial support and education and 25+ years of retirement and healthcare costs the taxpayer a lot of money.

[L00b 441]

Meanwhile, away from the same (6 years-) old debate about whether non-British residents in the UK contribute to the average UK quality of life or sponge off it, UK loyalist paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland have reportedly told the British prime minister that they are withdrawing support for the 1998 Belfast Agreement. 

[Westie1889 0]

1 hour ago, L00b said:

Meanwhile, away from the same (6 years-) old debate about whether non-British residents in the UK contribute to the average UK quality of life or sponge off it, UK loyalist paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland have reportedly told the British prime minister that they are withdrawing support for the 1998 Belfast Agreement. 

Where did anyone mention the word sponge?

we were talking about economics and using data that is out there - sorry for being factual.

Migrants obviously give benefits other than purely taxes in and out, a glaring example is the NHS where migrants bring the skills we need so badly.

 

They also create value for their businesses but whether that translates to increased taxes is a moot point when you look at the likes of Amazon and how they handle their tax affairs.

 

My background in terms of education is economics so that’s why I put the points across as I did, emotion or bias to one view or another doesn’t come into it - it’s purely data driven and based on well known economic models e.g supply and demand and it’s effect on wages.

 

The problem with the whole Brexit debate is that neither side speaks the truth, everything is twisted to suit personal biases then lazy tropes are thrown around, it’s really tiring and childish.

 

Like it or not we have left now, people need to get on with the serious work of making the best of it but if people go around with closed minds or ignore the evidence on both sides of the argument then they really have no credibility.

 

[L00b 441]

...so then, as I was saying: loyalist paramilitaries have withdrawn support for the GFA after a couple decades, as a direct consequence of Brexit.

 

Any advances on "you said 'sponging', therefore you are emotionally biased, you do not speak the truth, you use lazy tropes, you have no credibility"?

 

 

Edited March 4, 2021 by L00b

[Westie1889 0]

37 minutes ago, L00b said:

...so then, as I was saying: loyalist paramilitaries have withdrawn support for the GFA after a couple decades, as a direct consequence of Brexit.

 

Any advances on "you said 'sponging', therefore you are emotionally biased, you do not speak the truth, you use lazy tropes, you have no credibility"?

 

 

I don’t have to argue with you about your point on Ireland as it’s not something I have much knowledge of and I‘ve not commented against it as I have no reason to doubt what you say.

However you did throw a lazy insult my way but choose not to discuss it  - I’ll assume that’s because you can’t.

 

I’ve found a lot of your posts insightful as you obviously have a good knowledge into some of the political/legal machinations due to your job and I’ve not noticed a particular bias, in particular you called out the EU move on Irish border controls as the disaster that it was so I’ve  ways thought you are pretty fair and sensible .

 

Maybe this has changed so I’ll leave you to it.

[El Cid 212]

21 hours ago, the_bloke said:

It's important to note that all the headlines about EU migrants putting more into the economy than they take out base their figures on the assumption that they are neither educated nor retire in the UK, so are classed as taxpayers for the entire duration they are in the country. The earnings/expenditure ratio is then compared against a native who is born, educated, works, retires and dies in the UK and surprise(!) 18 years of financial support and education and 25+ years of retirement and healthcare costs the taxpayer a lot of money.

I dont agree with your statement, but if you believe its true, that is ok.

But the point is that EU migrants contribute more than non-EU migrants. I am sure you dont think that they are fake figures.

 

The average European migrant arriving in the UK in 2016 will contribute £78,000 more than they take out in public services and benefits over their time spent in the UK (assuming a balanced national budget), and the average non-European migrant will make a positive net contribution of £28,000 while living here. By comparison, the average UK citizen’s net lifetime contribution in this scenario is zero.

 

https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/recent-releases/8747673d-3b26-439b-9693-0e250df6dbba

[the_bloke 17]

1 hour ago, El Cid said:

I dont agree with your statement, but if you believe its true, that is ok.

But the point is that EU migrants contribute more than non-EU migrants. I am sure you dont think that they are fake figures.

 

The average European migrant arriving in the UK in 2016 will contribute £78,000 more than they take out in public services and benefits over their time spent in the UK (assuming a balanced national budget), and the average non-European migrant will make a positive net contribution of £28,000 while living here. By comparison, the average UK citizen’s net lifetime contribution in this scenario is zero.

 

https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/recent-releases/8747673d-3b26-439b-9693-0e250df6dbba

The statement is taken from the very study you just linked.

 

'The lifecycle contribution from migrants is highly positive for three reasons. First, migrants tend to arrive after the completion of their formal education in their home country, thus avoiding the significant education costs associated with natives. Second, as a group of predominantly young adults, the expected retirement costs associated with the later years of life are reduced by the fact that a large proportion tend to leave the UK again before reaching retirement. Finally, because the migrant population is younger, their positive contributions occur immediately, whereas their associated pension and health costs typically lie many years in the future, and therefore have less of an impact in today’s terms.'

 

Maybe you didn't read past the headline.

 

The report also highlights that whilst migrants from the older member states of the EU earn on average £3 ph more than the average native of the UK (£16.80 ph compared to £13.80) migrants from the newer member states of the EU earn £3.40 less ph than the average native of the UK. This averages out across EU migrants, leaving the average hourly pay of EU migrants to the UK being £13.10 ph compared to the £13.80 ph of the native population. In contrast, migrants from outside the EU earn an average of £14.80.

 

The figures also assume that migrants are mostly young, and a third of all migrants leave the country after ten years. So turn up, pay taxes and leave whilst still young without incurring any costs for education, health issues due to old age or retirement. It's a no brainer to work out they pay more in taxes than they take out. The figures also assume that any children of migrants stay here forever, therefore they are expected to have a net contribution of zero, when in reality children of migrants are more likely to leave the country to live abroad (and stop contributing to the UK purse) than children of natives.

 

If you take time to look at the average earnings of all EU migrants to the UK (older and newer states), it doesn't take a degree in economics to work out that a group of people earning less than the natives will pay less back into the system. They are only classed as net contributors because they have not been educated here or expected to retire and see the end of their days here - things that cost the taxpayer money. This is why they are net contributors. Facts.

 

 

[Magilla 510]

On 20/02/2021 at 17:28, the_bloke said:

68% claim starting to look flaky.

 

https://fullfact.org/economy/eu-exports-january-2021/

Turns out, not as flaky as the data trotted out by Gove to dispute it:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/mar/06/uk-statistics-authority-rebukes-gove-over-observers-brexit-figures

"The Cabinet Office run by Michael Gove has been officially reprimanded by the UK Statistics Authority for using unpublished and unverifiable data in an attempt to deny that Brexit had caused a massive fall in volumes of trade through British ports."

 

 

In other news:

 

Fishing firms could go bust over Brexit, MPs told

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56259855

"British fishing businesses could go bust or move to Europe because of post-Brexit trading disruption"

 

...given the problems and friction in N.I caused by Brexit, a good chance their plight could get much worse!

 

Edited March 7, 2021 by Magilla

[the_bloke 17]

16 minutes ago, Magilla said:

Turns out, not as flaky as the data trotted out by Gove to dispute it:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/mar/06/uk-statistics-authority-rebukes-gove-over-observers-brexit-figures

"The Cabinet Office run by Michael Gove has been officially reprimanded by the UK Statistics Authority for using unpublished and unverifiable data in an attempt to deny that Brexit had caused a massive fall in volumes of trade through British ports."

Then Gove and the RHA are as bad as each other, as the Road Haulage Association has also not released any data to clarify how it reached it's claim of 68%. Pie in the sky figures? Who knows. The difference here is that the Government is being held to account by the Statistics Authority, when the RHA can say whatever they want with impunity.