Today's discussion about the news

Are they saying that 4,300 of the uks richest tax payers left the uk because of inheritance tax?

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 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 👌

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.

As mentioned above to Super Davo, if there are any studies to support your view, let's see them.

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.

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.

Now you know why Truss wants to scrap the OBR.

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.

Haven't you heard, they all get given free houses and benefits!

Schrodinger's immigrant. Steals your jobs AND your benefits...

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.

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.

Good idea. France is not a dangerous, war torn country. Except when they go on strike and riot.

That appears to have been the conservatives solution to it