UKIP manifesto help please

pinno

Farage says he's going to spend and reduce taxes on the back of withdrawing from the EU thereby having an extra £32m in the pot to dish out.

So if he was to become Prime Minister, he would have to put his spending on hold until there was an EU referendum because he could not pull us out without one. Of course, that poses a problem if the referendum doesn't go his way.

Snookered me thinks.

finchy

This is a man who stands up in the European Parliament and says that the world has started cooling if the Arctic sea ice extent doesn't get smaller every single year. Don't go searching too hard for intelligence.

DeVlaeminck

Why would he need a referendum to get out of the EU ?

MisterMuncher

You can't use reason or logic to suss out UKIP. You're foolish to even try.

pblakeney

Ha ha!

You read manifestos! Ha ha.

May as well read Viz.

mamba80

i thought he would scrap HS2 and slash the foreign aid budget? he was asked about the EU and he said that if the referendum went for membership, there would less to spend......
Will be interesting if he (assuming he gets a few seats) jumps into bed with Cameron......

any parties manifesto is as accurate as mystic megs predictions for 2020.

CYCLESPORT1

http://www.ukip.org/
Vote UKIP

bompington

CYCLESPORT1 wrote:

http://www.ukip.org/
Vote UKIP

gets my vote for the funniest post of the year

VTech

He has a lot of great ideals, same as the others but the fact is that government in its current form can't work.
We will continue to spend less and tax more and have huge amounts of waste.

It will sadly be a case that within my children life, we will be paying more in interest on loans than we take in standard taxation which is why stealth taxes need to be made up and implemented on an ongoing basis.
The real issue is that we need a government who people will hate with a passion wether they be rich or poor.
We need higher tax and less spending for a generation in order to save the future.

What we really need is to have a policy where tax avoidance equals an immediate loss of funds, make the laws simple, you pay a set rate based on earning, make the amount less the more you earn which in turn will avoid the need to look for loopholes.
You can't tax at an ever increasing rate because it actually generates less revenue and we need more revenue.
Hold chancellors accountable for the actions they make just as the law does for company CEO's and accountants.
Make it illegal to bank outside of your home residence.

The problem is, the above won't happen because too many people who would suffer as a result of my list above are those whom would suffer financially if it were made law.

capt_slog

CYCLESPORT1 wrote:

http://www.ukip.org/
Vote UKIP

"Saving the pub: A UKIP priority"

Bloody hell!

(I'm feeling a bit slow this morning, someone please tell me if I'm looking at a spoof website, it's difficult to tell sometimes)

Bobbinogs

I don't see the problem with a politician saying something that may not hold up to scrutiny. They are all either foolishly optimistic about what they will achieve or downright liars...the whole lot of them. Whether a government has been good or bad is largely down to pure luck or subjectivity.

VTech

Bobbinogs wrote:

I don't see the problem with a politician saying something that may not hold up to scrutiny. They are all either foolishly optimistic about what they will achieve or downright liars...the whole lot of them. Whether a government has been good or bad is largely down to pure luck or subjectivity.

Thats the whole problem.
People view governments as people making choices for the folk who voted them in.

The only way it will work is if government is run like a business, choices can't be made other than in accordance with business because the rule of economics is that if you can't afford it, you can't have it.

Governments, unlike businesses can simply loan against gilts (future promises to pay which won't effect them as they won't be around when the pay day comes) or print more money and that worked perfectly in africa :roll:

Spend less, tax more. There is no other option.
At the same time, assist manufacturing, entice businesses to be productive, don't squeeze small business and make exportation easier.
I do however think that the current government have really assisted companies who work outside of the UK, it has enabled many people I know to flourish and grow exportations.

CiB

Why would he need a referendum? If UKIP are voted into power it will be on the strength of their manifesto and their known positions on various matters, just like any other party. The highest profile UKIP policy is their desire to take the UK out of the EU; it's implicit that by voting UKIP you're voting to leave the EU.

On a wider point, it's why the UK traditionally doesn't hold referenda - we vote for governments to take the decisions.

What a strange post to start a thread.

VTech

The problem is, Farage is right in his ideals that being in the EU costs us money.
It is £55,000,000.00 per day that we pay, however we get back a chunk leaving the deficit at around £33,000,000.00 per day.

Thats a lot of cash.
I do not know how much extra we make as a country in exportation due to the fact we are in the EU and wether or not we would get a similar figure if we were not. ?

rick_chasey

VTech wrote:

The problem is, Farage is right in his ideals that being in the EU costs us money.
It is £55,000,000.00 per day that we pay, however we get back a chunk leaving the deficit at around £33,000,000.00 per day.

Thats a lot of cash.
I do not know how much extra we make as a country in exportation due to the fact we are in the EU and wether or not we would get a similar figure if we were not. ?

Check your facts.

https://fullfact.org/economy/cost_eu_me ... tion-30887

After rebates etc, it's more like £24m per day, or £8.6bn a year.

As a proportion of GDP, it's pretty small.

Let's put that into some context. Easier to do in USD. £8.6bn in US is roughly 13bn.

The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the United Kingdom was worth 2522.26 billion US dollars in 2013.

so 13bn of that is roughly 0.5% of total GDP.

According to this: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... OxnVh_JKlw

HMRC collected £492.6 billion in taxes in 2013-14 (sterling), so the EU contribution proportion of that is 1.7%.

Not bad to be part of a community (and have a say in how it's run!) where 51-60% of our trade occurs.

VTech

Rick Chasey wrote:

VTech wrote:

The problem is, Farage is right in his ideals that being in the EU costs us money.
It is £55,000,000.00 per day that we pay, however we get back a chunk leaving the deficit at around £33,000,000.00 per day.

Thats a lot of cash.
I do not know how much extra we make as a country in exportation due to the fact we are in the EU and wether or not we would get a similar figure if we were not. ?

Check your facts.

https://fullfact.org/economy/cost_eu_me ... tion-30887

After rebates etc, it's more like £24m per day, or £8.6bn a year.

As a proportion of GDP, it's pretty small.

Let's put that into some context. Easier to do in USD. £8.6bn in US is roughly 13bn.

The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the United Kingdom was worth 2522.26 billion US dollars in 2013.

so 13bn of that is roughly 0.5% of total GDP.

According to this: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... OxnVh_JKlw

HMRC collected £492.6 billion in taxes in 2013-14 (sterling), so the EU contribution proportion of that is 1.7%.

Not bad to be part of a community (and have a say in how it's run!) where 51-60% of our trade occurs.

Your the best rick
That was the very site I used for my facts.
You used only the last year for the facts you wrote, I used the previous year which was/is closer to the inflation adjusted amount for the past 5 years

#boom

rick_chasey

0.5% of GDP to be part of and have a say in the market where we do 50-60% of our trade is NOT big though, however you cut it.

In the grand scheme of UK earnings, £8.6bn isn't much.

People think loads of 000s means it's a lot, but it's only significant to the UK if it's measured in 10s of billions.

VTech

Also, it is MORE (before rebates) than we spend on either Education, Transport and Defence !

I am not a UKIP voter, I just think that it doesn't matter who we vote as its the system thats wrong, not the party we vote in.

bompington

Rick Chasey wrote:

0.5% of GDP to be part of and have a say in the market where we do 50-60% of our trade is NOT big though, however you cut it.

In the grand scheme of UK earnings, £8.6bn isn't much.

People think loads of 000s means it's a lot, but it's only significant to the UK if it's measured in 10s of billions.

Not only that, but when I was cycling on the magnificent roads in Mallorca last week, it was a delight to know that at least some of my taxes have been well spent!

rick_chasey

VTech wrote:

Also, it is MORE (before rebates) than we spend on either Education, Transport and Defence !

I am not a UKIP voter, I just think that it doesn't matter who we vote as its the system thats wrong, not the party we vote in.

Rubbish.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.XPD.TOTL.GD.ZS
Let's look at education.

UK spends 6.2% of its total GDP on education. Let's be conservative and call that 6%.

6% of 2522 billion is 151billion.

That's in US, but 151bn is a hell of a lot more than 35bn.

So that is total and utter rubbish.

And why even talk about numbers before rebates, when you always get them?

That's also pointless.

rick_chasey

More simply, UK spends 6% of gdp on education and 0.5% on EU membership.

It's all about having a say in how it's run. UK will do the majority of its business with the EU so it might aswell have a say on how business is done. That carries a fee, but in the context of spending and trade volume it's not all that much.

We need less talk about big numbers and more about proportions. Puts it all into context.

VTech

Rick Chasey wrote:

VTech wrote:

Also, it is MORE (before rebates) than we spend on either Education, Transport and Defence !

I am not a UKIP voter, I just think that it doesn't matter who we vote as its the system thats wrong, not the party we vote in.

Rubbish.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.XPD.TOTL.GD.ZS
Let's look at education.

UK spends 6.2% of its total GDP on education. Let's be conservative and call that 6%.

6% of 2522 billion is 151billion.

That's in US, but 151bn is a hell of a lot more than 35bn.

So that is total and utter rubbish.

And why even talk about numbers before rebates, when you always get them?

That's also pointless.

I am taking figures off the various websites, including the one you first posted and putting them here.
Also, the reason anyone with half a brain quotes before rebates is because rebates are NOT guaranteed so doing so would be silly. It is akin to what someone who were purposefully unemployed would do when they count on their wages being guaranteed every two weeks when the truth is, its a gift and not earnt nor guaranteed.

As a businessman I genuinely only count money when its paid into the business account, I remember years ago when someone said they were making an order and I got excited only to find out it wasn't real. I now work on real only.

rick_chasey

Even ignoring the rebate you're out by a factor of 5.

As a 'business man' that shouldn't be overlooked, no?

VTech

Rick Chasey wrote:

Even ignoring the rebate you're out by a factor of 5.

As a 'business man' that shouldn't be overlooked, no?

It depends on how you work out the figures.
I have just checked the site: http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_de ... ng_30.html
This as I took the figure to be £43.4b is the amount central government pay with the remaining through local government (council tax)
So hands up, I'm wrong to a point but also right to a point although I will accept more on the wrong side.

Anyway, as my main point, do you argue that what I have written about the fix we need is even remotely wrong ?

ddraver

Has the rebate ever not been paid?

VTech

ddraver wrote:

Has the rebate ever not been paid?

Not that I know off but the difference we pay, and the amount we receive in rebate has differed by many billions.

VTech

ddraver wrote:

Has the rebate ever not been paid?

Just to add, the UK has paid as "little" as 50% with rebate accounted for and as much as 90% with rebate accounted for so as you can see, the difference can be staggering.
There is also no guarantee.

craker

We seem to be assuming that the money paid into the EU disappears into some sort of black hole.

There's a fair bit of infrastructure in South Wales where (some of) the money has come from an EU development fund, and if that same fund is contributing to infrastructure development in poorer bits of the EU then great, my money well spent.

tangled_metal

IIRC VTech quoted figures from 2013, did the rebate get paid for that year? If so then you can confidently quote the figures after rebate has come back with a higher degree of accuracy than the higher pre-rebate figure. If it has not come in then I can see that the pre-rebate figure is best quoted.

Do you see why I think quoting figures before and after rebates can be used to exagerate or downplay the truth, whatever that is. If you quoted 2013 and the rebate was in (IIRC 55bln compared to 33bln after rebate) then the lower figure was most relevent to discussions. You quoted the higher figure because it suited your points more.

VTech

craker wrote:

We seem to be assuming that the money paid into the EU disappears into some sort of black hole.

There's a fair bit of infrastructure in South Wales where (some of) the money has come from an EU development fund, and if that same fund is contributing to infrastructure development in poorer bits of the EU then great, my money well spent.

Im with you, we should help where we can but this is part of the money we get from rebates and lets not forget that on top of the money we pay into the EU, we also have countless amounts we pay in social subsidies for people who have moved into the UK when the same is not offered for UK residents if they did the same to these countries.

Thats not to say I am against it, just that the figures can look bad or very bad depending on how you look at it.
Forgetting wether anyone is in agreement to this or not doesn't really matter, the fact is we can't afford it, we can't afford defence, we can't afford education and we can't afford the health system.

tangled_metal

I think there was another thread that quoted some data about Brits abroad do better out of EU states than non-Brits do in the UK. Basically the balance of state aid from expat Brits against expat non-British in the UK is in the Brit's favour. If you get my drift.

All this talk about money we are paying out to the EU just makes me wonder. If the EU is our biggest trading partner then what happens if you factor in the revenue that comes in as a result of that business? Where is the balance of trade with the rest of the EU?