Brexit: Now What? Part II

[Aepervius]

This seems to be nothing to do with Brexit though. It's something that is already coming in for immigrants. It's just that EU will be treated the same as everyone else and be subject to the same stupid rules post Brexit.

I doubt £1000 will be a dealbreaker for the vast majority of these jobs. It's just more ways for the government to get paid.

That's still added cost though, and as we say around here , even small water flow end up as big river.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

That's still added cost though, and as we say around here , even small water flow end up as big river.

Or it'll be £1000 less salary offered to the employee. I think the majority of businesses will absorb it. Not sure of it applies to public sector workers as I could see it potentially being an issue for something like nurses or carers or whatever.

They'd have to be earning at least £35k a year to be settling here anyway.

 

[CapelDodger]

Well this won't be damaging for business



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38581873

Are they actually trying to make UK industry as inefficient and un-competitive as possible ?

The May government is firmly committed to presenting Britain as a welcoming country, open to doing business with the world. May has said so repeatedly.

As the old saying has it, if I was going there I wouldn't start from here.

 

[MCel58]

Doesn't matter. It's still his personal opinion. He has been honourable in showing that he can't work under the conditions. Fair does to the man. It does not make his views 'correct'. Everything with regards to Brexit is still in the realms of 'tea leaf prediction'. The banks have already had to admit that the predictions leading up to the referendum proved to be based on models that were flawed, the predicted dire results didn't happen (except the exchange rate chaos, but we all know that it open to blatant manipulation)

I'm amazed that there is so much fascination in the 'failed promises' and 'lack of plan' arguments. Both sides either lied, were 'economical with the truth', or confounded by the results. It was always obvious to me that the idea of directing all of the EU payments to the NHS was a none starter (IIRC the famous bus slogan doesn't even really promise that, it was due to poorly phrased comments from the politicians involved), we still need to pay agricultural subsidies, fund research, etc.

Neither side was going to plan anything significant prior to the referendum result, such a move would be totally wasteful. Hence I'm surprised at the furore that there should have been such planning. It's purely down to political points scoring - 'oh look the Brexiteers are inept...'. No they're not, they are planning now and looking at a lot of options, some of which may be controversial, and ministers will disagree with some options, especially those that cross office boundaries. Resolving issues like this is why we have a cabinet based government. Disagreements aren't necessarily a sign of a dis-functional government, provided those disagreements get resolved properly at the cabinet meetings. So far, so good in that respect.

The idea that migration will stop or the NHS will crash because it can't get staff from abroad is likewise a fallacy. Post Brexit people will still be able to migrate pretty much the same way (EU migration will just involve a work visa). The problem as I saw it was never about migration per se, but about uncontrolled migration. That we had little or no idea who comes in from the EU, for what purpose, how long they might stay, whether they have any employment opportunities, etc is frankly crazy.

I am not sure whether we know if remain lied or not yet, we have still to put down article 50 and to leave the EU. We need to see what impact that has on jobs and the economy. All of those predictions were based on putting down article 50 immediately.

I think there are signs of crashing in the NHS and social care already partly see https://www.theguardian.com/society...term=208048&subid=6687085&CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2
because even with freedom of movement we cannot meet the demands of an increasing elderly demographic. We will have 15 million elderly and older people within the next 10 years , there is no connection being made between meeting the NHS and social care crisis and the immigration needs of the country. To put that in context we are only beginning to see the effects of the post war baby boom of 1945-1957 where that section of society are at present only aged between 60-72 and at present many are still economically active. Most of them can expect to live another 13-23 years using present day life expectancy figures. They will become progressively more economically inactive and more dependent as time goes on.

We are becoming not a country of the young but a country of the old. We have some hard choices or combination of choices to make.

1. Continue with a model that needs 2.7 people actually working and paying tax and NI to support each older and elderly person who is in receipt of a state pension, winter fuel allowance, free TV license, free or subsidised travel, healthcare and social care which will need a working population paying NI and tax of a minimum 43 million to meet the needs of a demographic which will be a little over 15 million. This would mean the U.K. would need a total population in the region of 69 million once we count in the 11 million under 18 year olds. This would mean lots more immigration not less.

2. Cut the package of benefits to the older and elderly, which no Government is going to do given the power of the grey and silver voters.

2. Increase the use of more technology in the form of AI and robotics to replace and automate jobs. However, this would mean the Government being clearer with everyone about how technology is going to affect jobs in the future and open the basic income model up for debate.

3. Ensure most of our children choose as part of their education skills in the health and social care sector and take jobs at rates the economy can afford.

or
4. Pay at least twice as much in NI and tax.

Unfortunately this debate is still not being had, the mixture of the options are not being explored, it's like the proverbial elephant in the room that everyone has been ignoring for 40 years.

 

[MCel58]

Or it'll be £1000 less salary offered to the employee. I think the majority of businesses will absorb it. Not sure of it applies to public sector workers as I could see it potentially being an issue for something like nurses or carers or whatever.

They'd have to be earning at least £35k a year to be settling here anyway.

I am not sure the farmers and agricultural employers will absorb it or be able to afford it. If you need 70 fruit pickers or labourers and have to pay £70,000 just to get them here then many small farmers and small construction companies will go out of business, the same is true of smaller restaurants and pubs. Also many of the Small and Medium employers will just not cope with the red tape around work visas. We need to be clearer about the job needs of the country before the Government starts trying to fit policy of visa arrangements.

 

[erwinl]

I am not sure whether we know if remain lied or not yet, we have still to put down article 50 and to leave the EU. We need to see what impact that has on jobs and the economy. All of those predictions were based on putting down article 50 immediately.

I think there are signs of crashing in the NHS and social care already partly see https://www.theguardian.com/society...term=208048&subid=6687085&CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2
because even with freedom of movement we cannot meet the demands of an increasing elderly demographic. We will have 15 million elderly and older people within the next 10 years , there is no connection being made between meeting the NHS and social care crisis and the immigration needs of the country. To put that in context we are only beginning to see the effects of the post war baby boom of 1945-1957 where that section of society are at present only aged between 60-72 and at present many are still economically active. Most of them can expect to live another 13-23 years using present day life expectancy figures. They will become progressively more economically inactive and more dependent as time goes on.

We are becoming not a country of the young but a country of the old. We have some hard choices or combination of choices to make.

1. Continue with a model that needs 2.7 people actually working and paying tax and NI to support each older and elderly person who is in receipt of a state pension, winter fuel allowance, free TV license, free or subsidised travel, healthcare and social care which will need a working population paying NI and tax of a minimum 43 million to meet the needs of a demographic which will be a little over 15 million. This would mean the U.K. would need a total population in the region of 69 million once we count in the 11 million under 18 year olds. This would mean lots more immigration not less.

2. Cut the package of benefits to the older and elderly, which no Government is going to do given the power of the grey and silver voters.

2. Increase the use of more technology in the form of AI and robotics to replace and automate jobs. However, this would mean the Government being clearer with everyone about how technology is going to affect jobs in the future and open the basic income model up for debate.

3. Ensure most of our children choose as part of their education skills in the health and social care sector and take jobs at rates the economy can afford.

or
4. Pay at least twice as much in NI and tax.

Unfortunately this debate is still not being had, the mixture of the options are not being explored, it's like the proverbial elephant in the room that everyone has been ignoring for 40 years.

Or..
5. Raise the age at which you can enjoy your pension.

 

[MCel58]

Or..
5. Raise the age at which you can enjoy your pension.

That they have already done 3 times in the last 5 years, it doesn't help the major cost centre which is needing tax and NI for health and social care.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I am not sure the farmers and agricultural employers will absorb it or be able to afford it. If you need 70 fruit pickers or labourers and have to pay £70,000 just to get them here then many small farmers and small construction companies will go out of business, the same is true of smaller restaurants and pubs. Also many of the Small and Medium employers will just not cope with the red tape around work visas. We need to be clearer about the job needs of the country before the Government starts trying to fit policy of visa arrangements.

I don't think farm workers will come under the scheme. I doubt they are classed as skilled workers. At the moment there probably isn't any way to get farm labourers in legally at all. That's why the EU and free movement of people was such a boon for that sector.

My sympathy for farmers is limited since a hell of a lot of them are Tory voters and probably voted for Brexit as well.

 

[Tolls]

Not the ones that employ large numbers of pickers.

 

[Wildy]

I don't think farm workers will come under the scheme. I doubt they are classed as skilled workers. At the moment there probably isn't any way to get farm labourers in legally at all. That's why the EU and free movement of people was such a boon for that sector.

My sympathy for farmers is limited since a hell of a lot of them are Tory voters and probably voted for Brexit as well.

Maybe the farmers are hoping that they'll get access to farm workers under some kind of 'work for the dole' programme, giving them workers they don't have to pay for?

 

[MCel58]

I don't think farm workers will come under the scheme. I doubt they are classed as skilled workers. At the moment there probably isn't any way to get farm labourers in legally at all. That's why the EU and free movement of people was such a boon for that sector.

My sympathy for farmers is limited since a hell of a lot of them are Tory voters and probably voted for Brexit as well.

Even the Scottish farmers?

 

[McHrozni]

1. Continue with a model that needs 2.7 people actually working and paying tax and NI to support each older and elderly person who is in receipt of a state pension, winter fuel allowance, free TV license, free or subsidised travel, healthcare and social care which will need a working population paying NI and tax of a minimum 43 million to meet the needs of a demographic which will be a little over 15 million. This would mean the U.K. would need a total population in the region of 69 million once we count in the 11 million under 18 year olds. This would mean lots more immigration not less.

2. Cut the package of benefits to the older and elderly, which no Government is going to do given the power of the grey and silver voters.

2. Increase the use of more technology in the form of AI and robotics to replace and automate jobs. However, this would mean the Government being clearer with everyone about how technology is going to affect jobs in the future and open the basic income model up for debate.

3. Ensure most of our children choose as part of their education skills in the health and social care sector and take jobs at rates the economy can afford.

or
4. Pay at least twice as much in NI and tax.

Unfortunately this debate is still not being had, the mixture of the options are not being explored, it's like the proverbial elephant in the room that everyone has been ignoring for 40 years.

Number 2. appears twice, you actually listed five options.

None of these options are going to work by themselves, you need a combination of these five plus the sixth mentioned, an increase in pension age. Keeping people well past their prime employed will impact productivity though.

I'd also like to mention that option 1. is temporary, but it takes decades for it to backfire. Immigrants get old too, and eventually they'll request their well-earned pensions. You can't just continually increase the working population.

I would also add option 7. establish a framework of benefits that will lead to higher birth rates. This is similar to option 1., weaker because it is more expensive and because it takes decades to have any effect, but also stronger because it's less controversial (deplorables won't mind new people of their ethnic group).

I'd say about five of these seven possibilities need to work.

There is also an option 8., deregulate standards to the point average life expectancy falls to about 70. Massive increase in tobacco usage could do that. This one rises a fairly severe ethical dilemma though.

All eight combined will still be overwhelmed by a triple lock eventually though. That's how bad that policy is.

McHrozni

 

[Lothian]

Number 2. appears twice, you actually listed five options.

None of these options are going to work by themselves, you need a combination of these five plus the sixth mentioned, an increase in pension age. Keeping people well past their prime employed will impact productivity though.

I'd also like to mention that option 1. is temporary, but it takes decades for it to backfire. Immigrants get old too, and eventually they'll request their well-earned pensions. You can't just continually increase the working population.

I would also add option 7. establish a framework of benefits that will lead to higher birth rates. This is similar to option 1., weaker because it is more expensive and because it takes decades to have any effect, but also stronger because it's less controversial (deplorables won't mind new people of their ethnic group).

I'd say about five of these seven possibilities need to work.

There is also an option 8., deregulate standards to the point average life expectancy falls to about 70. Massive increase in tobacco usage could do that. This one rises a fairly severe ethical dilemma though.

All eight combined will still be overwhelmed by a triple lock eventually though. That's how bad that policy is.

McHrozni

There is another option. We could become an even bigger tax haven than we currently are. At the moment the world is working together to reduce tax havens and make corporate businesses pay their fair share. We could buck the trend, tear up agreements and offer large corps and rich people minimal tax rates. Lots of small sums add up to a big one. But even if it fails, the people funding Brexit like Aaron Banks will be loads better off and won't have the inconvenience of having his companies off shore.

 

[McHrozni]

There is another option. We could become an even bigger tax haven than we currently are. At the moment the world is working together to reduce tax havens and make corporate businesses pay their fair share. We could buck the trend, tear up agreements and offer large corps and rich people minimal tax rates. Lots of small sums add up to a big one. But even if it fails, the people funding Brexit like Aaron Banks will be loads better off and won't have the inconvenience of having his companies off shore.

Are you sure this would work? Reducing tax rates only works to increase revenues to a level of taxes. I'm quite sure the taxes in UK are already low to the point further reductions would not significantly increase the revenue, they could easily reduce it.

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Even the Scottish farmers?

Did they vote Yes to Independence?

 

[Craig B]

Did they vote Yes to Independence?

They were told that remaining in the UK was the only way of remaining in the EU. What effect did that have on their Indyref vote?

 

[The Don]

Are you sure this would work? Reducing tax rates only works to increase revenues to a level of taxes. I'm quite sure the taxes in UK are already low to the point further reductions would not significantly increase the revenue, they could easily reduce it.

McHrozni

I think Lothian was expressing the views of a wing of the Conservative Party/Brexiteers rather than suggesting a viable and/or reasonable policy.

The view on the right, at least the way it is expressed (whether they actualy believe it it another thing) is that the lower the taxes, the more rich people and businesses you attract to the country and the less incentive they have to avoid/evade taxation. The theory is that tax receipts will increase as a result.

Whilst the immediate benefits to the rich are apparent (lower taxes), the wider benefits to society have yet to be demonstrated in the real world, for large economies (i.e. not just the Cayman Islands or Liechtenstein) in the long term - AFAIK

 

[Lothian]

Are you sure this would work? Reducing tax rates only works to increase revenues to a level of taxes. I'm quite sure the taxes in UK are already low to the point further reductions would not significantly increase the revenue, they could easily reduce it.

McHrozni

It works for Tiny Islands who can massively increase their number of taxpayers. For the UK I really doubt it, but it is a Tory policy (having the lowest CT rates in Europe). It is also what the "libertarian" element of Brexit want. Cut taxes, Privatise (introduce patient charges to) the NHS etc.

 

[Lothian]

I think Lothian was expressing the views of a wing of the Conservative Party/Brexiteers rather than suggesting a viable and/or reasonable policy.

Yes.

 

[McHrozni]

I think Lothian was expressing the views of a wing of the Conservative Party/Brexiteers rather than suggesting a viable and/or reasonable policy.

The view on the right, at least the way it is expressed (whether they actualy believe it it another thing) is that the lower the taxes, the more rich people and businesses you attract to the country and the less incentive they have to avoid/evade taxation. The theory is that tax receipts will increase as a result.

Whilst the immediate benefits to the rich are apparent (lower taxes), the wider benefits to society have yet to be demonstrated in the real world, for large economies (i.e. not just the Cayman Islands or Liechtenstein) in the long term - AFAIK

Yes, I agree. Small countries can benefit immensely, large countries ... somewhat at best.

McHrozni