If we vote for Brexit what happens

cells

BobQ wrote: »

I suspect they are ones working as self employed consultants piling the cash into pensions, VCTs and off shore trusts, channelling their money through companies that let them pay less than 20% tax on the income (and those are ones not evading tax!)

maybe I only know the underlings being paid the £100-200k region. All of them are in standard paye afaik

Sapphire

BobQ wrote: »

I agree that we should not have a European Army. Junkers argument is that it would show Russia we mean business. Its daft ideas like this that are a reason for staying in the EU to vote against them. As I recall it would take a new treaty to make this happen as it is a matter that is for nations to address. The idea is merely the view of a few people and many national governments are opposed. Frankly I am surprised that you listen to these stupid ideas. They really have nothing to do with the Referendum. They sit in the bendy banana category as far as I am concerned.

On reason why an EU Army might happen "one day" is most nations are having difficulty maintaining defence spending at 2%, some have given up. RUSI predicts that whoever wins the next election we will have more defence cuts and lose 30000 more military personnel. If they are right, one day the idea may not be so ridiculous, although we will be better off pooling resources through NATO as to a degree we do now.

I agree about security at borders. I think Schengen will look very different in 5 years time.

Actually, I agree with much of what you say. However, as was proved last year when Merkel invited all and sundry to enter Europe, without consulting any other European nations, let alone giving populations a vote about such a key issue, decisions can be taken by the 'EU' without the wishes of all (or even any) member states taken into consideration. This particular decision has caused major problems for European countries, such as a breakdown of social cohesion, a leap to the right in many countries (both likely to intensify due to the magnitude of the problem), many criminal and terrorist acts perpetrated on the citizens of European countries, and detrimental effects on the areas economies. So that, among other things, is why I am voting for Brexit.

Yes, Schengen is likely to look very different in five years time (of necessity), but by then it will be rather late in the day…

HornetSaver

cells wrote: »

Even on this part of the forum most people dont realise that London is a tale of two stories. Inner London which has gone berserk and outter London which has not (to the same extent)

Back in 1995 a terrace house in hackney cost £90k and in Enfield £80k now in 2016 the same terrace house in Enfield costs £370k and in Hackney it is £826k

Polish immigrants didn't push up the price of inner London relative to outer London by two times! They are not the ones buying terrace homes for £826k with wages of £7.20ph

Inner London boomed due to the boom in financial services. Things like Private equity guys getting paid £500k a year they are the ones bidding and buying £1m terrace homes not the poor migrants. While they are in town 'normal' people wont get a seat on those musical chairs. Personally I am happy that London has such workers paying ~£200k a yr in taxes it beats not having them and all of the rest of us having to pay higher taxes to make up the loss

And to be clear, it's outer London and the wider impact on the SE and Northern Home Counties which has so many people riled.

Few people would dispute that living within feasible walking distance of the boundaries of the Cities of London and Westminster is going to attract an eye-watering premium (those that do dispute it are either living in cloud cuckoo land, or are some of the last remnants of communities that in reality are long gone). The size of that premium almost doesn't matter - it is always going to be at a level that only the very wealthy can afford.

It's the fact that properties are unaffordable for those on above median incomes in huge geographic areas many tens of miles away that leads to the situation being designated as a housing crisis.

buglawton

BobQ wrote: »

Yes.

One of the issues I have not seen debated is this statement:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/504661/Alternatives_to_membership_possible_models_for_the_UK_outside_the_EU_Accessible.pdf

Or as the WTO puts it:

Now I am not an expert on WTO rules but the above seems to be a problem. I believe it means that if we import cars into the UK (say from the EU) and agree to apply a 0% tariff to it you need to use the same tariff to import cars from anyone else (eg Japan, US, Korea).

The EU will have to apply the same tariff on cars that they import from us as they do on other nations with which they do not have a trade agreement. But they will have more trade agreements than us so may not be bothered.

Do you think that applying these will cause unemployment?

Or have I misunderstood the WTO rules? maybe some one else knows?

I used to import goods like handbags directly from China for resale in the UK. There's a tariff table you can use to check the exact duty to pay. Most often it was around the 3% mark and quite easy to administer.

Haven't dug into what sophisticated goods like electronics, washing machines and cars would attract in duty.

The U.K. could choose to use a clone of that same tariff table (it's the EU one). Increased cost due to such duties could be offset by decreased VAT (remember we pay a crippling 20%).

gfplux

Sapphire wrote: »

However, employing a disrespectful drunkard, with questionable (to say the least) personal financial dealings, who puts everyone's backs up, to do the job he is doing tells us much about the EU.

The Speaker of the House of Commons' job is merely to keep order in the House, not to voice key decisions about the country, let alone about all the sovereign nations in Europe.

Wow Sapphire you are very angry with Mr Juncker. Don't you think the name calling is a little over the top.

CLAPTON

gfplux wrote: »

Wow Sapphire you are very angry with Mr Juncker. Don't you think the name calling is a little over the top.

On 22 May 2015, at the EU summit in Riga, Latvia, Juncker, alongside EU President Donald Tusk and Latvian PM Laimdota Straujuma, greeted EU leaders in an unusual way in diplomacy. For instance he tried to convince the Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras to wear a tie by offering his own piece.[55] He also noticed and remarked the overweight of Karl-Heinz Lambertz and patted his belly. Juncker has given a slap to his former deputy, the Luxembourgish Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn, as well as kissed Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel's bald head.[56] But the most stormy incident happened when Hungarian premier Viktor Orb!n arrived and Juncker addressed him, using the word "dictator", following it with a warm handshake and a slap on the cheek.[57] Later spokesperson Margaritis Schinas called the event as only a "joke". "Juncker is known for his very informal style", he said and added "I wouldn’t make anything else out of this".[58] After the strange incidents some online websites questioned Juncker's sobriety.[59]

the way that he engineered tax evasion on a massive scale for the benefit of Luxembourg, is a matter of the record of course

lisyloo

cells wrote: »

maybe I only know the underlings being paid the £100-200k region. All of them are in standard paye afaik

Contractors on say £82k (for convenience) would pay themselves £10k income, £40k pension and £32k dividends (basic rate 7.5%).

If the have a spouse then get the spouse to salary sacrifice so the spouse pays 7.5% on divis (and possibly gift it back too).

I don't know anyone who would do such a thing but I think your overestimating the tax take.
Even if they are PAYE they ought to be putting £40k into a pension and not paying tax on it.

gfplux

For some this might be an interesting read. I do not subscribe to the BBC is biased group and those might dismiss this as propaganda.
However the BBC have put together an interesting list of what, ifs and buts about the referendum and Brexit.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32810887

BobQ

buglawton wrote: »

I used to import goods like handbags directly from China for resale in the UK. There's a tariff table you can use to check the exact duty to pay. Most often it was around the 3% mark and quite easy to administer.

Haven't dug into what sophisticated goods like electronics, washing machines and cars would attract in duty.

The U.K. could choose to use a clone of that same tariff table (it's the EU one). Increased cost due to such duties could be offset by decreased VAT (remember we pay a crippling 20%).

Yes but say we currently add 10% tariff on cars from outside the EU (no idea what the actual figure is). EU imports do not carry that tariff.

After Brexit UK must impose a 10% tariff on all cars (including those from the EU). If we were only to levy a tariff of 3% on the EU cars we import, we must levy the same 3% on ALL car imports.

So the idea that outside the EU we do a special deal with the EU outside of a formal trade agreement is flawed. If we charge 3% on EU imports (car price rises) we do it on China/US/Australian imported cars. Prices might fall by so would tax revenue.

If the EU agree to levy only a 3% tariff on our exports of cars to them, they need to charge 3% on all car imports outside of a trade agreement.

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

Yes but say we currently add 10% tariff on cars from outside the EU (no idea what the actual figure is). EU imports do not carry that tariff.

After Brexit UK must impose a 10% tariff on all cars (including those from the EU). If we were only to levy a tariff of 3% on the EU cars we import, we must levy the same 3% on ALL car imports.

So the idea that outside the EU we do a special deal with the EU outside of a formal trade agreement is flawed. If we charge 3% on EU imports (car price rises) we do it on China/US/Australian imported cars. Prices might fall by so would tax revenue.

If the EU agree to levy only a 3% tariff on our exports of cars to them, they need to charge 3% on all car imports outside of a trade agreement.

what is a 'formal' trade deal?
how is it defined in law?
does Turkey have a formal trade deal?