So where's the Public Sector Strike thread at???

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 - where will they move to?

I talk to these monkeys all day, about moving. We have pan Euro roles, and rarely anyone wants to leave London.

Switzerland? Only OK if you have serious FU money. Else it's too boring for your late 20s early 30s guy with a lot of disposable cash.

Frankfurt? Dump (so I'm told. Nightmare trying to move someone there)

Paris? Same problem - too much tax

Madrid? S'ok tax wise, but, well, Spain's not the best place to have a lot of finance...

You have to go somewhere in Europe. London's where it's always been, so it will continue.

I haven't come across someone who left London because of the 50p, other than the odd guy on the buy side who really shouldn't be affected by it anyway.

HK? Dubai? Singapore? I have friends who have moved to all three. And don't knock the Swiss.

Yeah it's tough to do business in Europe if you're in Dubai or Singapore.

You need to be in Europe. Eurozone's the biggest economy in the world.

Plenty of people move to HK - but they have Asian coverage, not European.

So? Why do they need to be in Europe? If they can move markets, earn more, and not get taxed of half of it, they will.

Either way, if they have moved, they have moved - and they're taking their tax (and their expenditure) with them. Same difference if it's Zurich or HK.

And it's far from impossible to deal with Europe from the Middle East or Asia.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

So, ignore the bit that is contrary to your point of view, and that's OK then?

Well I think the "benefit" section is debatable and intangible. For example I've never had to claim child tax credit or EMA, but those are both things that contribute to making my environment more civilised. I know others have differing opinions on this, its subjective. The other sections of the story were based on fact though, so I focused more on that.

W1 wrote:

Why would "tax avoidance" be included anyway? Of course it's excluded. Do you think benefit maximisiation is included?

Does it matter?

So your position is that what you pay in is tangible, and should be counted, but what is taken out should be ignored....You can't ignore the "fact" of (at least) the figures being taken out, that makes no logical sense. As to the non-monetary benefits, I agree that is subjective, but equally no-one is counting the non-monetary negatives of paying tax....

It is telling that you mention "tax avoidance" - your focus is on not paying in, rather than taking out. That is curious and skewed, but indicates why you're willing to ignore the benefits being paid.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

So your position is that what you pay in is tangible, and should be counted, but what is taken out should be ignored....You can't ignore the "fact" of (at least) the figures being taken out, that makes no logical sense. As to the non-monetary benefits, I agree that is subjective, but equally no-one is counting the non-monetary negatives of paying tax....

Did I misinterpret the site? Are these people in the bottom decile getting thousands of pounds in lump sumps here? Is that what the "benefit" section means? I thought it also included benefiting from things like paved roads and NHS treatment? Anyway, I can't really think of what the non-monetary negatives of paying tax are other than that I have to wait a bit longer before I can buy a fancy new bike? Or that I can only enjoy three meals out a month rather than four. What do you mean by this?

W1 wrote:

It is telling that you mention "tax avoidance" - your focus is on not paying in, rather than taking out. That is curious and skewed, but indicates why you're willing to ignore the benefits being paid.

Not sure what your point is, why is that telling? I was suggesting that the top decile % of disposable income spent probably doesn't apply to those on very high incomes. Is that wrong?

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

So? Why do they need to be in Europe? If they can move markets, earn more, and not get taxed of half of it, they will.

Either way, if they have moved, they have moved - and they're taking their tax (and their expenditure) with them. Same difference if it's Zurich or HK.

And it's far from impossible to deal with Europe from the Middle East or Asia.

They'd have done that already if there was a benefit.

You need people on the mainland.

I'm confident I'm right about this. After all, it's my job. It comes up literally every day.


Re my comment about who the budget review benefits, you contested the idea that the better off are better off with it, and the worse off worse off.

Reported in the FT (front page)

Mr Joyce said the decision to freeze parts of the working families tax credit would create “losses towards the bottom of the income distribution”. However the IFS believed they were “small beer” in terms of the overall picture.There would be small gains for middle earners and bigger gains towards the top of the income scale as the better off benefited from the council tax freeze and the cut in fuel duty, Mr Joyce added.

rick_chasey

But the reason why the Tories are bricking it is for this:

Britons will be worse off in 2015 than they were in 2002 as the nation grapples with a severe squeeze on living standards, the Institute for Fiscal Studies said on Wednesday.

The numbers tell a stark story. A couple without children, who would have had a real median income of £438 a week in 2002, would still be struggling to match that figure 13 years later, when their income would be just £433 a week, according to the IFS.
A couple with two children would have a median income of £606 a week in 2015 – still a few pounds less than the £612 they made in 2002.

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

So? Why do they need to be in Europe? If they can move markets, earn more, and not get taxed of half of it, they will.

Either way, if they have moved, they have moved - and they're taking their tax (and their expenditure) with them. Same difference if it's Zurich or HK.

And it's far from impossible to deal with Europe from the Middle East or Asia.

They'd have done that already if there was a benefit.

You need people on the mainland.

I'm confident I'm right about this. After all, it's my job. It comes up literally every day.


Re my comment about who the budget review benefits, you contested the idea that the better off are better off with it, and the worse off worse off.

Reported in the FT (front page)

Mr Joyce said the decision to freeze parts of the working families tax credit would create “losses towards the bottom of the income distribution”. However the IFS believed they were “small beer” in terms of the overall picture.There would be small gains for middle earners and bigger gains towards the top of the income scale as the better off benefited from the council tax freeze and the cut in fuel duty, Mr Joyce added.

That's the thing Rick - they are. Don't just look at your own market. Will more or less people leave going forward? Your guess is as good as mine.

You purported to ignore the inflation-equaling increase in benefits, which is completely misleading. The budget doesn't appear to be too bad for those at the very bottom, nor those at the very top, with the middle (as usual) taking the brunt.

Are we really cross-referring threads now? It's confusing enough with two of these bad-boys running at the same time.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

You purported to ignore the inflation-equaling increase in benefits, which is completely misleading. The budget doesn't appear to be too bad for those at the very bottom, nor those at the very top, with the middle (as usual) taking the brunt.

But why should those at the very bottom take the brunt?

W1

notsoblue wrote:

?

My simple point is that you can't ignore the "benefits received section" and draw skewed conclusions having done so. That is all.

Negatives of paying tax? Same negatives as having less money in your pocket. Maybe that's a new bike, maybe it's paying the rent.

rick_chasey

You purported to ignore the inflation-equaling increase in benefits, which is completely misleading. The budget doesn't appear to be too bad for those at the very bottom, nor those at the very top, with the middle (as usual) taking the brunt.

Eh? The IFS, (quoted) says it's losses towards the bottom of the income distribution, small gains for middle earners, bigger gains for top earners.

How are you arguing that? I'd suggest they've taken a more holistic view than you.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

Negatives of paying tax? Same negatives as having less money in your pocket. Maybe that's a new bike, maybe it's paying the rent.

Read the article. Its "disposable" income. Besides, I doubt the highest decile have issues with paying the rent.

sketchley

Rick Chasey wrote:

I haven't come across someone who left London because of the 50p, other than the odd guy on the buy side who really shouldn't be affected by it anyway.

But how many have decided now the time to employ a professional accountant to do the tax return because of it and are now paying less net tax than before. The issue is not do they leave the country because of it, it is does the 50% tax rate create more or less tax revenue to the treasury. If it's the later then what is the point other than the fact it's a popular policy with people that don't have to pay it.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

You purported to ignore the inflation-equaling increase in benefits, which is completely misleading. The budget doesn't appear to be too bad for those at the very bottom, nor those at the very top, with the middle (as usual) taking the brunt.

But why should those at the very bottom take the brunt?

Why "should" anyone? Why should those on benefits get 5.2% increase, whilst those who are working get 1% or less?

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

Negatives of paying tax? Same negatives as having less money in your pocket. Maybe that's a new bike, maybe it's paying the rent.

Read the article. Its "disposable" income. Besides, I doubt the highest decile have issues with paying the rent.

You asked what the negatives of paying tax was.

rick_chasey

Sketchley wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I haven't come across someone who left London because of the 50p, other than the odd guy on the buy side who really shouldn't be affected by it anyway.

But how many have decided now the time to employ a professional accountant to do the tax return because of it and are now paying less net tax than before. The issue is not do they leave the country because of it, it is does the 50% tax rate create more or less tax revenue to the treasury. If it's the later then what is the point other than the fact it's a popular policy with people that don't have to pay it.

Sure. Agreed.

My point is the UK won't suddenly stop being the European financial centre just because there's an emphasis on other parts of the economy, nor will it if there is tough europe-wide legislation on the financial sector. That part of the economy will still exist in the medium term at least.

I think finance in London is stickier than people like to make out. Scaring the gov't into giving them more freedom than is good for the nation.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

Negatives of paying tax? Same negatives as having less money in your pocket. Maybe that's a new bike, maybe it's paying the rent.

Read the article. Its "disposable" income. Besides, I doubt the highest decile have issues with paying the rent.

You asked what the negatives of paying tax was.

Well my point still stands, the highest decile still doesn't have issues with paying the rent.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

You purported to ignore the inflation-equaling increase in benefits, which is completely misleading. The budget doesn't appear to be too bad for those at the very bottom, nor those at the very top, with the middle (as usual) taking the brunt.

But why should those at the very bottom take the brunt?

Why "should" anyone? Why should those on benefits get 5.2% increase, whilst those who are working get 1% or less?

So, what, you're saying that the government should work it out so that everyone should get exactly the same increase to be "fair"?

Also, being in receipt of benefits doesn't equal not working.

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I haven't come across someone who left London because of the 50p, other than the odd guy on the buy side who really shouldn't be affected by it anyway.

But how many have decided now the time to employ a professional accountant to do the tax return because of it and are now paying less net tax than before. The issue is not do they leave the country because of it, it is does the 50% tax rate create more or less tax revenue to the treasury. If it's the later then what is the point other than the fact it's a popular policy with people that don't have to pay it.

Sure. Agreed.

My point is the UK won't suddenly stop being the European financial centre just because there's an emphasis on other parts of the economy, nor will it if there is tough europe-wide legislation on the financial sector. That part of the economy will still exist in the medium term at least.

Surely we want it to remain for the long term? Or are you that envious that you'd cut off your nose to spite your face? What would you rather people were doing?

We are not a competitive manufacturing country anymore, and probably won't ever be again. I await "Thatcher" being mentioned ad nauseum. But that's partly to do with us, and partly to do with our competitors. We cannot be competitive unless we reduce costs (wages, rents, red-tape, protection for employees) or increase prices (protectionism and inflation).

We are market leaders in some sectors, yet some posters appear to want to throw that away through envy politics. Sure, you can get rid of the "bankers", tax them to oblivion, make them quit or leave the UK. And their secretaries will have no jobs, nor the many more thousands of "normal" staff who work for banks.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

You purported to ignore the inflation-equaling increase in benefits, which is completely misleading. The budget doesn't appear to be too bad for those at the very bottom, nor those at the very top, with the middle (as usual) taking the brunt.

But why should those at the very bottom take the brunt?

Why "should" anyone? Why should those on benefits get 5.2% increase, whilst those who are working get 1% or less?

So, what, you're saying that the government should work it out so that everyone should get exactly the same increase to be "fair"?

Also, being in receipt of benefits doesn't equal not working.

What I am saying is that appears on the face of it to not be a bad deal for people on benefits, compared to others.

You've used that word again.

I take your second point, but the above still stands.

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

Surely we want it to remain for the long term? Or are you that envious that you'd cut off your nose to spite your face? What would you rather people were doing?

Envious? The more people in investment banks get paid the more I get paid. Literally.

I think there is a social cost to having a strong financial sector (in its current guise anyway) that is often overlooked or under-valued - broadly to do with exposing the economy to a reasonably volatile industry, and social issues in and around very large wealth discrepancies which are well documented.

W1 wrote:

We are not a competitive manufacturing country anymore, and probably won't ever be again. I await "Thatcher" being mentioned ad nauseum. But that's partly to do with us, and partly to do with our competitors. We cannot be competitive unless we reduce costs (wages, rents, red-tape, protection for employees) or increase prices (protectionism and inflation).

We are market leaders in some sectors, yet some posters appear to want to throw that away through envy politics. Sure, you can get rid of the "bankers", tax them to oblivion, make them quit or leave the UK. And their secretaries will have no jobs, nor the many more thousands of "normal" staff who work for banks.

I don't buy that the UK will never do manufacturing again. I think in the right conditions the UK can structurally reform. Thatcher and Blair were pro consumption led growth, which is fine, but that has left the UK quite exposed. A look at nations that are doing better and nations who have worked hard at rebalancing have done better (see Germany). Germany had an enormous amount of structural problems after re-unifcation and managed to work through them. There's no reason why the UK can't - save for a political class that doesn't want to.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

You purported to ignore the inflation-equaling increase in benefits, which is completely misleading. The budget doesn't appear to be too bad for those at the very bottom, nor those at the very top, with the middle (as usual) taking the brunt.

But why should those at the very bottom take the brunt?

Why "should" anyone? Why should those on benefits get 5.2% increase, whilst those who are working get 1% or less?

So, what, you're saying that the government should work it out so that everyone should get exactly the same increase to be "fair"?

Also, being in receipt of benefits doesn't equal not working.

What I am saying is that appears on the face of it to not be a bad deal for people on benefits, compared to others.

You've used that word again.

I take your second point, but the above still stands.

Honestly, I just want you to say out loud that you don't think people deserve a 5.2% increase in benefits.

rjsterry

W1 wrote:

We are not a competitive manufacturing country anymore, and probably won't ever be again. I await "Thatcher" being mentioned ad nauseum. But that's partly to do with us, and partly to do with our competitors. We cannot be competitive unless we reduce costs (wages, rents, red-tape, protection for employees) or increase prices (protectionism and inflation).

We are market leaders in some sectors, yet some posters appear to want to throw that away through envy politics. Sure, you can get rid of the "bankers", tax them to oblivion, make them quit or leave the UK. And their secretaries will have no jobs, nor the many more thousands of "normal" staff who work for banks.

Well that depends what you are manufacturing. Obviously we can't compete with south or east Asian wages, but we can very much compete on quality and in specialist high-skilled areas. It's been fashionable for some time to pretend that something as grubby as making stuff is all in the past for Britain, and somehow beneath us.

cjcp

Rick Chasey wrote:

Switzerland? Only OK if you have serious FU money. Else it's too boring for your late 20s early 30s guy with a lot of disposable cash.

Nonsense. Skiing when it's snowing, cycling when it's not snowing. With bags of cash to spend on them. Awesome.*

You're just saying that because you come from a country will no hills or mountains, only bergs.

The bit on BBC News last night, when Nick Robinson introduced a striker to a chap who runs a family-owned cafe and works an 80-hour week who can't afford to contribute to a pension. That was interesting.

*I am fundamentally a very boring person, hence the appeal.

walkingbootweather

cjcp wrote:

The bit on BBC News last night, when Nick Robinson introduced a striker to a chap who runs a family-owned cafe and works an 80-hour week who can't afford to contribute to a pension. That was interesting.

Humm, I saw that too and took it with a pinch of salt. So he 'works' best part of 12 hours a day, 7 days a week does he? I've got a mate that has a 'family-run pub'. He counts all the time he spends in the bar, chatting with his mates, and playing darts as his 'work time'.

It was a bit of a lame attempt to bring together apparently people from either end of the debate. It was all a bit contrieved.

SimonAH

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

Surely we want it to remain for the long term? Or are you that envious that you'd cut off your nose to spite your face? What would you rather people were doing?

Envious? The more people in investment banks get paid the more I get paid. Literally.

I think there is a social cost to having a strong financial sector (in its current guise anyway) that is often overlooked or under-valued - broadly to do with exposing the economy to a reasonably volatile industry, and social issues in and around very large wealth discrepancies which are well documented.

W1 wrote:

We are not a competitive manufacturing country anymore, and probably won't ever be again. I await "Thatcher" being mentioned ad nauseum. But that's partly to do with us, and partly to do with our competitors. We cannot be competitive unless we reduce costs (wages, rents, red-tape, protection for employees) or increase prices (protectionism and inflation).

We are market leaders in some sectors, yet some posters appear to want to throw that away through envy politics. Sure, you can get rid of the "bankers", tax them to oblivion, make them quit or leave the UK. And their secretaries will have no jobs, nor the many more thousands of "normal" staff who work for banks.

I don't buy that the UK will never do manufacturing again. I think in the right conditions the UK can structurally reform. Thatcher and Blair were pro consumption led growth, which is fine, but that has left the UK quite exposed. A look at nations that are doing better and nations who have worked hard at rebalancing have done better (see Germany). Germany had an enormous amount of structural problems after re-unifcation and managed to work through them. There's no reason why the UK can't - save for a political class that doesn't want to.

I have worked in, and for the manufacturing industry for almost all my working life and have watched a decline over even that period. Even today we are doing our best to export manufacturing overseas (Rolls Royce is a classic example).

The problem is that when you relocate your manufacturing base for cheaper labour and premises you also relocate your know-how and expertise. This is something that is enormously hard, if not impossible, to repatriate.

Big industry is global, the only manufacturing and engineering that will remain here for the forseeable future is some R&D (hanging on by fingernails), service engineering (turnaround time), civil and structural engineering, and niche manufacturing (like double glazing, that is not scalable).

I really can't see traditional manufacturing returning to the UK until our standard of living has dropped sufficiently that we become a relatively cheap labour pool compared to India or China or Mexico.

My own company manufactures in Switzerland, Germany, Canada and the USA........am I twitching? Not so much because we've retained all of the IP and expertise in the host nations. So far at least the cheap labour countries just can't do what we do. How long will this last? Don't know.

notsoblue

walkingbootweather wrote:

cjcp wrote:

The bit on BBC News last night, when Nick Robinson introduced a striker to a chap who runs a family-owned cafe and works an 80-hour week who can't afford to contribute to a pension. That was interesting.

Humm, I saw that too and took it with a pinch of salt. So he 'works' best part of 12 hours a day, 7 days a week does he? I've got a mate that has a 'family-run pub'. He counts all the time he spends in the bar, chatting with his mates, and playing darts as his 'work time'.

It was a bit of a lame attempt to bring together apparently people from either end of the debate. It was all a bit contrieved.

Also, the cafe owner is self-employed. Its a false comparison. He should have introduced the striker to an equivalent employee at a large corporation.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

You purported to ignore the inflation-equaling increase in benefits, which is completely misleading. The budget doesn't appear to be too bad for those at the very bottom, nor those at the very top, with the middle (as usual) taking the brunt.

But why should those at the very bottom take the brunt?

Why "should" anyone? Why should those on benefits get 5.2% increase, whilst those who are working get 1% or less?

So, what, you're saying that the government should work it out so that everyone should get exactly the same increase to be "fair"?

Also, being in receipt of benefits doesn't equal not working.

What I am saying is that appears on the face of it to not be a bad deal for people on benefits, compared to others.

You've used that word again.

I take your second point, but the above still stands.

Honestly, I just want you to say out loud that you don't think people deserve a 5.2% increase in benefits.

Well why don't you do your usual trick and just presume it if that would make you happy?

"Deserve" is like "fair". It is increasingly misused.

I don't think it's a bad deal compared to those who are not on benefits who are facing real reductions in wages - but I've said that already. Do you disagree?

W1

rjsterry wrote:

W1 wrote:

We are not a competitive manufacturing country anymore, and probably won't ever be again. I await "Thatcher" being mentioned ad nauseum. But that's partly to do with us, and partly to do with our competitors. We cannot be competitive unless we reduce costs (wages, rents, red-tape, protection for employees) or increase prices (protectionism and inflation).

We are market leaders in some sectors, yet some posters appear to want to throw that away through envy politics. Sure, you can get rid of the "bankers", tax them to oblivion, make them quit or leave the UK. And their secretaries will have no jobs, nor the many more thousands of "normal" staff who work for banks.

Well that depends what you are manufacturing. Obviously we can't compete with south or east Asian wages, but we can very much compete on quality and in specialist high-skilled areas. It's been fashionable for some time to pretend that something as grubby as making stuff is all in the past for Britain, and somehow beneath us.

The problem is that making hi-tech stuff won't employ millions of people, but you are right - it's another thing we are good at which should be encouraged (and, in my view, is encouraged).

W1

SimonAH wrote:

I have worked in, and for the manufacturing industry for almost all my working life and have watched a decline over even that period. Even today we are doing our best to export manufacturing overseas (Rolls Royce is a classic example).

The problem is that when you relocate your manufacturing base for cheaper labour and premises you also relocate your know-how and expertise. This is something that is enormously hard, if not impossible, to repatriate.

Big industry is global, the only manufacturing and engineering that will remain here for the forseeable future is some R&D (hanging on by fingernails), service engineering (turnaround time), civil and structural engineering, and niche manufacturing (like double glazing, that is not scalable).

I really can't see traditional manufacturing returning to the UK until our standard of living has dropped sufficiently that we become a relatively cheap labour pool compared to India or China or Mexico.

My own company manufactures in Switzerland, Germany, Canada and the USA........am I twitching? Not so much because we've retained all of the IP and expertise in the host nations. So far at least the cheap labour countries just can't do what we do. How long will this last? Don't know.

I think that's an interesting post. I think we have "missed the boat" compared to Germany, and won't be able to do what they have done now.

We should be focusing on what we can do, and what we lead at. Manufacturing also has it's externalities as well (such as pollution and poor working conditions) - let's not forget that when having a crack at "the bankers".

Only time will tell.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Honestly, I just want you to say out loud that you don't think people deserve a 5.2% increase in benefits.

Well why don't you do your usual trick and just presume it if that would make you happy?

"Deserve" is like "fair". It is increasingly misused.

I don't think it's a bad deal compared to those who are not on benefits who are facing real reductions in wages - but I've said that already. Do you disagree?

Bored with arguing semantics. You win.

cjcp

notsoblue wrote:

walkingbootweather wrote:

cjcp wrote:

The bit on BBC News last night, when Nick Robinson introduced a striker to a chap who runs a family-owned cafe and works an 80-hour week who can't afford to contribute to a pension. That was interesting.

Humm, I saw that too and took it with a pinch of salt. So he 'works' best part of 12 hours a day, 7 days a week does he? I've got a mate that has a 'family-run pub'. He counts all the time he spends in the bar, chatting with his mates, and playing darts as his 'work time'.

It was a bit of a lame attempt to bring together apparently people from either end of the debate. It was all a bit contrieved.

Also, the cafe owner is self-employed. Its a false comparison. He should have introduced the striker to an equivalent employee at a large corporation.

@WBW - yep, it was probably contrived for impact and what not.

@NSB - it's about someone having a pension and someone not having a pension. I'll hold my hands up; I don't have much sympathy (in fact, I may not have any) with the strikers.