Today's discussion about the news
Comments
-
Are they saying that 4,300 of the uks richest tax payers left the uk because of inheritance tax?
0 -
"Ultimately the answer is to reform the planning system, but 3,240 pages of rules won’t be reformed overnight – which is why it makes sense to slow down net migration."
It's a short term measure. Read the report.
0 -
I have, the statement about increasing gdp per head is every clear. Here is the statement again: let me know which part you don't understand:
"The commission modelled a reduction in the UK’s annual net migration from 315,000 from 2028 to a figure of 150,000. It said such a move would reduce GDP by 2.4 per cent by 2045 but raise GDP per capita by 2.1 per cent by the same year. This would be equivalent to a £1,157 boost per person per year in 2023 prices."
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I mean the entire thing is utter ******* isn't it. The second you scratch the tiniest bit beneath the surface on any argument. Bearing in mind only 4% of people actually pay IHT, and if you are one of those 4,300 you would have ample access to the many ways you can avoid it not requiring you to move countries. Or that people can magically move from trade to trade to fill whatever vacancies crop up without needing specific skills.
I think the Lettuce's think tank produces higher quality work.
0 -
I mean the report produced by the lettuce Council, not the Telegraph report about it.
It's mental to say that our planning system means that immigration reduces gdp per capita, where it generally increases gdp per capita, and then extrapolate out to 2045 based on just reducing immigration.
For what it's worth, their estimates of what planning reform would do to gdp per capita are three times the effect of reducing immigration.
This, for public sector productivity is estimated to deliver twice as much as reducing immigration: "Our proposals are that the fall in public service productivity over the period since 2019 is reversed over four years while for subsequent years growth in productivity of 1% per annum can be achieved through the use of digital and other technologies."
That's the level of detailed analysis in there 👌
0 -
Sounds rather like another way of selling deregulation and the chimera of 'trickle down economics' to me.
0 -
I find it hilarious that Stevo is arguing for anyone to read the report in detail and pore over specifics, like it has been written by some of the greatest minds in economics.
How long ago was Trussomics? Do you think any of these people have any creditability whatsoever?
The entire organisation is funded and staffed by right wing cranks with a history of pushing deregulation, cutting taxes for the richest and against green policy. So guess what their recommendations are going to be, on this or any given subject?
If there is one positive about Trussomics, it's that it exposed the cronyism between the think tanks, right wing media and that wing of the Tory party. But if you're still taking any of what they say seriously, so soon after they've ballsed up their moment with their hands on the levers of power so spectacularly, then you are beyond hope.
0 -
It's the only report out there on the subject that I am aware of, so if you have anything to counter that, feel free to post it. Just repeating that it was connected with Truss is weak.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
As mentioned above to Super Davo, if there are any studies to support your view, let's see them.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]1 -
Which bit if the report do you want an alternative to? That immigration generally increases gdp or that the planning system is screwed?
I don't disagree with either.
An alternative to the immigration causing negative gdp per capita is here from march this year. Taking reasonable assumptions, it is net positive, and (I'd say) more positive with higher immigration than lower https://obr.uk/box/net-migration-forecast-and-its-impact-on-the-economy/
Thoughts?
0 -
Is it weak, because Truss didn't come up with her ideas on her own, and the people that did clearly don't deserve to be listened to.
0 -
Are you aware of how think tanks work? You find people to fund "research" into subjects and issue publications that, because they aren't from an academic institution, can basically say whatever you or your benefactor want them to say, because they aren't subject to peer review. And then use your connections to put them in public and make those ideas gain traction and (in the words of the IEA) "turn ideas that were once considered the edge of lunacy to the edge of policy". So the Truss / IEA connections are very relevant, given that they were both the monkey and the organ grinder of Trussonimics.
Anyway there have been enough comments here that already debunked the report. Do you really think 4,300 people plan to leave the UK purely as a result of IHT, rather than just setting up a multitrust or similar? How does their model work out the very specific figure they quoted on the benefits - the fact they've just listed figures rather than the effects driving those figures is an instant red flag to me. Why do you think this is the only study on the subject? My take is because there have been numerous academic studies over years that back the benefits of immigration, and politicians pushing an anti immigration agenda have only ever needed to use emotional arguments to attract the voters they do, meaning nobody has ever bothered to fund "research" like this in the past.
0 -
Thanks. The first section. On the basic point of reduced immigration reducing GDP is pretty uncontroversial. Ditto that the planning system is a major restriction on development and therefore economic growth. That's just the bleeding obvious.
The second point that the modelling shows an increase in GDP per capita - i.e. population falling faster than GDP - is dependent on the makeup of the existing population and of the immigrants. KG noted that they have based this on the projected immigration being skewed towards dependents and students. That was entirely in the hands of the current government and their visa policy. Given they are extremely unlikely to be the government by the end of the year I don't think the assumption that this pattern will continue is a sound. In any case I'm sceptical that foreign students are the brake on growth that is suggested. Higher Education is one of our best exports. Almost by definition foreign students bring money into the country. In contrast we have a serious problem with our homegrown workforce. Not enough under retirement age; not enough healthy enough to work; and a skills shortage. I think it's more likely that the problems are already at home rather than imported. There are between 4 and 5 times more people on long term sick leave than annual net immigration.
It's also pretty dubious to suggest that a modelled increase in GDP per capita means that everyone will be £X better off. This is as meaningful as suggesting that a shipment of 7000 cars arriving at Avonmouth means we are all 1/10,000 of a car better off. Clearly that's not how the real world works. Any benefits are very localised.
Likewise, quoting the claimed effects of proposed tax cuts as £X per person is meaningless. There's no generalised benefit to the whole population to changing a tax that only a small proportion of individuals pay. It's no surprise that this particular think tank found that cutting IHT (which the vast majority don't pay; annual receipts ~0.27% of GDP) has a supposedly much bigger effect than reducing income tax (which most of us pay; annual receipts for IT, NIC & CGT ~17% of GDP, two orders of magnitude greater than IHT). That alone should suggest there is something amiss with the modelling.
This is before we even look at whether such tax cuts are affordable or achievable: nobody really thinks they are. This was all tested in the real world for 49 days and it didn't work.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Further to the student visa piece, the obr says this "migrants coming to the UK to study are now more likely to be economically active, with their participation rate increasing from 30 per cent in 2019 to 48 per cent in the year to June 2023. This is likely the result of the graduate route making it easier for students to enter the labour market after their studies."
So it's not as simple as the Growth commission says.
In addition, even if immigration does reduce gdp per capita slightly, that is not necessarily reducing gdp per capita of the population excluding immigrants. That's important surely?
0 -
Now you know why Truss wants to scrap the OBR.
0 -
The report you link talks a lot about the various scenarios with different levels of immigration, then seems to jump to a statement that higher immigration = higher growth; lower immigration = lower growth without properly explaining why as far as I can see.
I can understand the logic of the report that I linked in that increased immigration puts more pressure on housing, services, transport etc and also (especially in the case of illegal immigration) that many immigrants will be earning at a level where they are net beneficiaries of the state rather than net contributors. Hence the impact.
My original point was to challenge to assumption (which has been trotted out on here a few times) that more = immigration is always better for growth/the economy. I can see there are arguments in favour but also valid arguments against.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I'd disagree with your first paragraph - that's my main point that it cannot be assumed to always be the case. I've also added a few reasons above in my post above.
While I'm not sure that foreign students are a big problem either given education is an export as you say, see my point above that many immigrants will end up being net recipients of the state rather than contributors - especially illegal ones who are more likely to be unskilled. Then there is the pressure on housing, services, transport etc in a world where there are clearly constraints and pressures on these things.
I'll leave the IHT point as I see that as a separate point that's already been debated a few times on here.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
How do illegal immigrants claim benefits from the state?
1 -
Haven't you heard, they all get given free houses and benefits!
0 -
As rjsterry pointed out, the Telegraph article is making the same mistake as George Osborne did with the Brexit analysis. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36073201
Even if the numbers made sense, a £1100 increase in gdp per capita doesn't make every person £1100 better off by 2045.
0 -
...and still has time to beg on street corners.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.1 -
Rwanda, unintended consequences?
"The Taoiseach (Irish prime minister) Simon Harris has asked Ireland's justice minister to bring legislation to cabinet to enable asylum seekers to be sent back to the UK.
Helen McEntee has revealed that 80% of recent arrivals to the Republic came from the UK across the Irish border.
Tánaiste (deputy prime minister) Micheál Martin said the UK's Rwanda policy was already impacting Ireland."
Also, maybe all these boat people are just passing through to get somewhere else? Just as they did in France.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Can't they send them to France, because they are both EU countries?
0 -
Don't know. Don't really care. Just thought it was funny with the Irish looking at us the same way we look at France.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
It's not free to house and feed them while they're here awaiting their case, is it?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Good idea. France is not a dangerous, war torn country. Except when they go on strike and riot.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
So what's your solution to this? Let them all in?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
That appears to have been the conservatives solution to it
0 -
It appears that more of them might be doing just that, now that the Rwanda plan is in place. As Micheal Martin says.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
