If we vote for Brexit what happens

GreatApe

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

That's a bit extreme IMHO.
You can't get dressed into your services, eat your services for brekky, travel to work in your services and use nothing but services in your work you know.


You might be interested to learn that - despite the loss of traditional industry and manufacturing like material/clothing or deep coal mining, manufacturing flourishes in the UK.

We just made a record number of cars for example.

Read:
http://www.themanufacturer.com/uk-manufacturing-statistics/

I did not say manufactured products will disappear. Agriculture has not disappeared its just that its much more automated so few people now work in agriculture

We will have more manufactured goods in 20 years time but fewer people working in said factories and companies.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

GreatApe wrote: »

I did not say manufactured products will disappear. Agriculture has not disappeared its just that its much more automated so few people now work in agriculture

We will have more manufactured goods in 20 years time but fewer people working in said factories and companies.

What you said to be exact was:

The modern world is going to go to 95% services

I merely point out that what you suggest is not possible.

setmefree2

Little bit of good news for those of us who care - figures from the Office for National Statistics Tuesday showed that the shortfall in the latest fiscal year narrowed to 48.7 billion pounds instead of 52 billion pounds as previously estimated. It left the deficit at 2.5 percent of gross domestic product, the lowest for a decade.

That really is amazing.


Underlying net debt fell to 79.5 percent of GDP, the lowest since May 2014.

Tromking

setmefree2 wrote: »

Little bit of good news for those of us who care - figures from the Office for National Statistics Tuesday showed that the shortfall in the latest fiscal year narrowed to 48.7 billion pounds instead of 52 billion pounds as previously estimated. It left the deficit at 2.5 percent of gross domestic product, the lowest for a decade.

That really is amazing.

Hardly.
The desire to cut the deficit by rationing the money for public services has come at a great cost.

cogito

Tromking wrote: »

Hardly.
The desire to cut the deficit by rationing the money for public services has come at a great cost.

So we must borrow lots more money then?

Tromking

cogito wrote: »

So we must borrow lots more money then?

....or maybe a hike in taxation?
Just making the point that reducing the deficit by slashing our public services is hardly "amazing" it's merely a natural consequence.

BobQ

In recent weeks member states have hardened the EU’s stance, setting increasingly exacting requirements for Britain in the divorce stage of the negotiations to meet before trade talks can begin. Even with an election campaign in full flow in Britain, there were few signs of reservations or dissent among the 27 ministers over the aim-high approach to talks. This includes a maximalist view of Britain’s financial obligations that underpins an estimated exit bill of €55-75bn in net terms, covering everything from the costs of moving London-based EU agencies to EU farm payments in 2019 and 2020. In gross terms, the EU has raised its opening demand for Britain’s Brexit bill to up to €100bn.

Well there are at least three possibilities for the stance:

(1) they fear the power of Teresa and are just pretending to be tough before they capitulate to her demands

(2) they are merely reacting to the aggressive stance of May realising that this is the best way to get what they want by boxing her into a corner

(3) The EU and the UK are simply dancing around like two wrestlers putting on a show for the crowd before providing the result that both know their sponsors required.

On balance I think (1) is unlikely, (2) is a possibility and (3) is most probable,

setmefree2

Tromking wrote: »

....or maybe a hike in taxation?
Just making the point that reducing the deficit by slashing our public services is hardly "amazing" it's merely a natural consequence.

Hiking tax doesn't necessarily produce more tax.

When Osborne lowered tax from 50% to 45% he got more money.

When CT was lowered - the exchequer got more money.

It's The Laffer Curve init

A_Pict_In_A_Past_Life

Tromking wrote: »

Hardly.
The desire to cut the deficit by rationing the money for public services has come at a great cost.

It could be much, much worse.
In fact it still could be much worse of some get their way. *Cough.*

Had the deficit continued growing this rationing would have taken longer. Had the rationing not happened when it did the rationing would have taken longer (added interest etc.) Had we increased the deficit by spending more that we do not have the rationing would have taken longer. Once we are in surplus rather than deficit our national debt begins to get paid off.

So as for raising taxes, to make enough difference I don't think some realise just how much these taxes would have to be raised.
As an all-round 1% increase in income tax is said to raise £5.5 billion ( ttps://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/gb/gb2015/ch10_gb2015.pdf )and our national debt is in the region of £1680 billion ( http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/334/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/ ) I think we can safely say that to make any impact over a reasonable period the rise in tax needed would not be popular. To say the least.


So yes, the desire to cut the deficit by rationing the money for public services has come at a great cost. The alternatives are however equally unpalatable.

Tromking

setmefree2 wrote: »

Hiking tax doesn't necessarily produce more tax.

When Osborne lowered tax from 50% to 45% he got more money.

When CT was lowered - the exchequer got more money.

It's The Laffer Curve init

Yeah, I get all that.
How you reduce the deficit is a political choice though and not through some sort of "amazing" economic alchemy as you seem to be suggesting.