Brexit or Britin

[thebish]

Does not affect the UK,

Really?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/m ... cord-level" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

More jobs stolen.

have you just read the headline and not the article??

The fact that the 229,000-strong rise in overseas migrant employment in Britain happened at the same time as an 185,000-strong rise in the number of Britons in work suggests that the idea that they are all coming over here “taking our jobs” remains a fallacy.

HMRC figures published last week said that recent EU migrants had paid £3.1bn in income tax and national insurance in the tax year to April 2014 and claimed £556m in benefits - making a net contribution to the economy of more than £2.5bn.

[BWFC_Insane]

The fact that the 229,000-strong rise in overseas migrant employment in Britain happened at the same time as an 185,000-strong rise in the number of Britons in work suggests that the idea that they are all coming over here “taking our jobs” remains a fallacy.

I'm not sure that data alone supports nor disproves that "idea" in all fairness....

[Prufrock]

Anyone know much about polling? Why is there such a disparity between the results of the online vs phone polls for the referendum? Is one or the other more reliable? Phone Polls give big lead to remain - Online Polls are neck and neck.

All I know is that over the weekend I have spoken to around 20 friends and family and the subject of the vote came up, (not my doing I must hasten to add) and to my surprise actually, being they come from a wide political spectrum, to a person they all said they would be voting 'out'.
The main reason given, the fear, yes fear of what the EU is going to dump on us in future, Merkel and the Germans got many a mention.
Hardly scientific, but there you go, some of them were nailed on 'in' voters in my eyes.

Bish, I've said it before, the result is the result, I'll sit back, laugh and watch the faux outrage of those conned into 'vote stay' when the EU policies start to effect their mainly middleclass lives.
Encouraging the youth with little knowledge of history and somewhat naïve in out look to vote yes is akin to Turkey's voting for Christmas.
On the subject of Turkey one slightly deluded youth told me it would mean cheaper holidays there if we stayed in!

I'm genuinely torn on the issue and have no idea how I will vote. Long term I think we're better out, but short term I worry the consequences of Boris, Gove and his mates wreaking havoc in the aftermath of an out vote for 4/5 years, when inevitably Cameron is ousted. I'm no fan of Cameron, but he's preferable to Boris, Gove and IDS et al. I can't even see Labour getting their act together for 2020, so it could be Boris for nearly a decade

If only Mystic Meg was still around. The truth is that no one knows and it's all guesswork. I still don't think the EU people know how unpopular they are and that also goes for many of the out campaigners. The electorate shouldn't vote on the basis of who they like/don't like, but in the absence of empirical data that is how many will decide.

I don't know if anyone else read the article in the Sunday Times giving the history of Cameron's views on the EU. Let's just say that he, together with Corbyn, has performed a massive backflip in his public support for Remains. Has someone got something on them both.....like photographs of an homoerotic tryst in the House of Commons lavatories?

Unlike convinced outer Boris, you mean??

[TANGODANCER]

Not had much to say on this topic because of waiting for some official guidance from those in the know. According to the latest gilded page of wisdom to pop through my door, (from the remain ensemble) and discounting Richard Branson and Karen Brady as self interests, the other sources are a bit thought-worthy: Martin Lewis Consumer Champion, Chief executive of the Royl College of Midvives, T.U.C General secretary and Guvenor of the Bank of England all bat for stay-ins. It's one side of a two-sided coin, but I think I'll wait and see the opposing team because, right now I'm still not sure I trust any of them..

PS: On the substitutes bench are H.M.R.C, the L.S.E.and Official Treasury Reports.

[bobo the clown]

The Chief Exec of the Royal College of Midwives. Really !? The LSE. The essentially anonymous Head of the TUC. Some classy groups there. I'm glad you spotted that Branson & Brady were dodgy though.

[TANGODANCER]

The Chief Exec of the Royal College of Midwives. Really !? The LSE. The essentially anonymous Head of the TUC. Some classy groups there. I'm glad you spotted that Branson & Brady were dodgy though.

Well, Bobo, I did but read the leaflet. I'm not quite sure what Brady is doing there, and Branson will do what's best for Branson regardless. As I said, I'll wait and see what the opposition come up with.

[BWFC_Insane]

The Chief Exec of the Royal College of Midwives. Really !? The LSE. The essentially anonymous Head of the TUC. Some classy groups there. I'm glad you spotted that Branson & Brady were dodgy though.

I'd have thought LSE were a fairly respectable source for such an opinion. Arguably one of the best.

[thebish]

The Chief Exec of the Royal College of Midwives. Really !? The LSE. The essentially anonymous Head of the TUC. Some classy groups there. I'm glad you spotted that Branson & Brady were dodgy though.

ha! about time you (and Pru) fessed up that you're not on the fence at all!!

[Prufrock]

I've never claimed to be on the fence! Not 100% sure, but leaning heavily one way.

As for bobo knocking LSE, the outers published an open letter the other day. One of the "business leader" signatories owns a salon in Preston with £313 worth of assets. I haven't missed a "k" or "m" off.

[Lord Kangana]

Yeah, but if we weren't in Europe, that would be like £363,363,313.36p. Or whatever figure they just made up this week.

[Hoboh]

Yeah, but if we weren't in Europe, that would be like £363,363,313.36p. Or whatever figure they just made up this week.

Or the rest is in one of Cameron's off shore companies.

[Hoboh]

I've never claimed to be on the fence! Not 100% sure, but leaning heavily one way.

As for bobo knocking LSE, the outers published an open letter the other day. One of the "business leader" signatories owns a salon in Preston with £313 worth of assets. I haven't missed a "k" or "m" off.

Windy down there?

[Hoboh]

Sorry to disappoint you but those 'nasty immigrants' are going to pile billions on the EU/member budgets over the next decade, money we can hardly afford to give to our sick and disabled already.
Future New member states like Macedonia, Albania etc. are hardly going to be net contributors to the EU budget, just a further drain and then there's the Turks!
Where is all the 'extra' money going to come from given that most of the EU states economies are in stagnation, easy, your services and pocket.

I take issue with this. As a country we can afford to put more money into health or whatever else we want to. It's a matter of choice and priority, and our government is choosing to cut services and certain taxes. We can debate about the choices being made, but to believe we can't afford something is merely believing George Osborne and his cronies - I didn't have you down for blindly accepting anything he says!

I wouldn't accept it was raining in a monsoon if Osborne told me it was.

As you say, it's all about choices and I reckon £20 odd billion in foreign aid and to the EU is a very poor choice or should we just tax everyone to death?

[thebish]

our tax rates are not particularly high, are they? certainly taxing everyone "to death" sounds a little tiny bit massively projectfeary...

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Sorry to disappoint you but those 'nasty immigrants' are going to pile billions on the EU/member budgets over the next decade, money we can hardly afford to give to our sick and disabled already.
Future New member states like Macedonia, Albania etc. are hardly going to be net contributors to the EU budget, just a further drain and then there's the Turks!
Where is all the 'extra' money going to come from given that most of the EU states economies are in stagnation, easy, your services and pocket.

I take issue with this. As a country we can afford to put more money into health or whatever else we want to. It's a matter of choice and priority, and our government is choosing to cut services and certain taxes. We can debate about the choices being made, but to believe we can't afford something is merely believing George Osborne and his cronies - I didn't have you down for blindly accepting anything he says!

I wouldn't accept it was raining in a monsoon if Osborne told me it was.

As you say, it's all about choices and I reckon £20 odd billion in foreign aid and to the EU is a very poor choice or should we just tax everyone to death?

I'd start with arbitrary defence spending. This 2% thing is bollocks. You work out what you need your armed forces to be to deal with the threats you want to be protected against and budget for it. Spending a set amount because NATO/the Yanks think it's a good idea sounds like spending money for the sake of it and to prop up an arms industry.

The same goes for foreign aid. Lets work out what we want to achieve and how we can achieve it and spend accordingly. None of this set percentage bollocks.

I'd also flog the parliament buildings and build something fit for purpose elsewhere. Cheaper and we'd actually then be able to accommodate all MPs in a seat in the main chamber at the same time. Fancy that in 2016!

There are so many things we could do to better spend our money, but whilst we insist on voting the same people from the same 2 parties into government, nothing is going to change.

[bedwetter2]

Anyone know much about polling? Why is there such a disparity between the results of the online vs phone polls for the referendum? Is one or the other more reliable? Phone Polls give big lead to remain - Online Polls are neck and neck.

All I know is that over the weekend I have spoken to around 20 friends and family and the subject of the vote came up, (not my doing I must hasten to add) and to my surprise actually, being they come from a wide political spectrum, to a person they all said they would be voting 'out'.
The main reason given, the fear, yes fear of what the EU is going to dump on us in future, Merkel and the Germans got many a mention.
Hardly scientific, but there you go, some of them were nailed on 'in' voters in my eyes.

Bish, I've said it before, the result is the result, I'll sit back, laugh and watch the faux outrage of those conned into 'vote stay' when the EU policies start to effect their mainly middleclass lives.
Encouraging the youth with little knowledge of history and somewhat naïve in out look to vote yes is akin to Turkey's voting for Christmas.
On the subject of Turkey one slightly deluded youth told me it would mean cheaper holidays there if we stayed in!

I'm genuinely torn on the issue and have no idea how I will vote. Long term I think we're better out, but short term I worry the consequences of Boris, Gove and his mates wreaking havoc in the aftermath of an out vote for 4/5 years, when inevitably Cameron is ousted. I'm no fan of Cameron, but he's preferable to Boris, Gove and IDS et al. I can't even see Labour getting their act together for 2020, so it could be Boris for nearly a decade

If only Mystic Meg was still around. The truth is that no one knows and it's all guesswork. I still don't think the EU people know how unpopular they are and that also goes for many of the out campaigners. The electorate shouldn't vote on the basis of who they like/don't like, but in the absence of empirical data that is how many will decide.

I don't know if anyone else read the article in the Sunday Times giving the history of Cameron's views on the EU. Let's just say that he, together with Corbyn, has performed a massive backflip in his public support for Remains. Has someone got something on them both.....like photographs of an homoerotic tryst in the House of Commons lavatories?

Unlike convinced outer Boris, you mean??

You are correct, of course. Quite unlike steadfast Boris.

[thebish]

I'd start with arbitrary defence spending. This 2% thing is bollocks. You work out what you need your armed forces to be to deal with the threats you want to be protected against and budget for it. Spending a set amount because NATO/the Yanks think it's a good idea sounds like spending money for the sake of it and to prop up an arms industry.

[Hoboh]

Sorry to disappoint you but those 'nasty immigrants' are going to pile billions on the EU/member budgets over the next decade, money we can hardly afford to give to our sick and disabled already.
Future New member states like Macedonia, Albania etc. are hardly going to be net contributors to the EU budget, just a further drain and then there's the Turks!
Where is all the 'extra' money going to come from given that most of the EU states economies are in stagnation, easy, your services and pocket.

I take issue with this. As a country we can afford to put more money into health or whatever else we want to. It's a matter of choice and priority, and our government is choosing to cut services and certain taxes. We can debate about the choices being made, but to believe we can't afford something is merely believing George Osborne and his cronies - I didn't have you down for blindly accepting anything he says!

I wouldn't accept it was raining in a monsoon if Osborne told me it was.

As you say, it's all about choices and I reckon £20 odd billion in foreign aid and to the EU is a very poor choice or should we just tax everyone to death?

I'd start with arbitrary defence spending. This 2% thing is bollocks. You work out what you need your armed forces to be to deal with the threats you want to be protected against and budget for it. Spending a set amount because NATO/the Yanks think it's a good idea sounds like spending money for the sake of it and to prop up an arms industry.

The same goes for foreign aid. Lets work out what we want to achieve and how we can achieve it and spend accordingly. None of this set percentage bollocks.

I'd also flog the parliament buildings and build something fit for purpose elsewhere. Cheaper and we'd actually then be able to accommodate all MPs in a seat in the main chamber at the same time. Fancy that in 2016!

There are so many things we could do to better spend our money, but whilst we insist on voting the same people from the same 2 parties into government, nothing is going to change.

Don't forget HS2 and now spaceports, replacing a missile system so it can remain invisible when all you need is to get the dammed thing in a sub orbit then it's good night Vienna, the list is endless but as you say some people want and vote for all this crap like they applaud shipping in all waifs and strays as long as not to their town.
Personally I'd be building up our armed forces rapidly, I reckon we'll be needing them soon the way the world is going and other than the French and Dutch I wouldn't hold my breath for any action from other EU nations.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Personally I'd be building up our armed forces rapidly, I reckon we'll be needing them soon the way the world is going and other than the French and Dutch I wouldn't hold my breath for any action from other EU nations.

I don't know if we need to spend more or could spend less, but we should be spending what we need to spend on it rather than a figure plucked from the air.

[bedwetter2]

our tax rates are not particularly high, are they? certainly taxing everyone "to death" sounds a little tiny bit massively projectfeary...

The marginal rate of tax for those on average incomes is, I don't doubt, rather higher than you would imagine. Something over 40% for that average person.

Many people tend to forget that in addition to income tax they are paying national insurance (a misnomer if I ever heard one) 20% less allowance, VAT 20% on most non-food items, duties on certain consumption products in addition to VAT - can be as high as 70% dependent on the product, council tax - generally viewed as averaging 8% of household income, insurance tax - either 9.5% or 20% dependent upon type, stamp duty - most commonly 2% but can be up to 5% or more, inheritance tax - 40% on anything above 325k threshold and anything the Treasury can dream up in addition.

It used to be that the Swedish state was pointed out as the highest taxation regime in Europe, but the average tax burden on Swedes is no higher than that in the UK.

So let's say an unlucky bastard earning £26k per year has a tax heavy lifestyle, it would go something like this:

Income tax £3000 pa
National Insurance £2477 pa
VAT on purchases including clothing, some food items, services including gas, electricity, water, fuel for vehicle, alcohol, tobacco, etc £2500 pa
Duty on fuel, alcohol, tobacco £1450 pa
Council tax £1300 pa
Insurance tax £60 pa
Tax on vehicle maintenance and repair £240 pa
Stamp duty (if moving homeowner) £1500
IHT £7500 (based on £400k estate split between four siblings)

= £20027

Excluding the last two, the rate of taxation is still 42%. So the state is taking approaching 50% of the poor saps income to distribute and spend as inefficiently as it possibly can and does.