If we vote for Brexit what happens

Generali

michaels wrote: »

At least the BBC is unbiased and doesn't censor comments like the following:



Oh, hang on a minute:

It's not just the BBC, freedom of speech has left the building. (See for example the Hillsborough T-shirt: unpleasant yes but illegal....?).

ruggedtoast

This debate is interesting because, apart from Clapton, everyone is right. Staying in presents limitations and opportunities, but so does leaving.

Therefore. When in doubt do nowt.

Remain wins.

BobQ

Rinoa wrote: »

Oh, I think most people will understand it.
-
I had hoped to spare you the source but if you want to wade through parliamentary reports be my guest:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/82/8211.htm

Thanks for the source. But they appear to agree with me that GDP per capita is not ideal either.

GDP per capita is a better measure than GDP because it takes account of the fact that immigration increases not only GDP but also population. However, even GDP per capita is an imperfect criterion for measuring the economic impacts of immigration on the resident population because it includes the per capita income of immigrants

If they were all unemployed or were all surgeons it might be significant but if they are in a broad range of jobs it tells you nothing.

Perhaps your point was more more subtle than this?

BobQ

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

It occurred to me the other day whilst I was watching Question Time that this comment that minimum wage working EU citizens contribute more to the economy that they remove is false. I'll explain.

If you are on the lowest full time wage possible your gross would probably be £14,040.00 working a 37.5 hour week.

That means there is only £3,040.00 of taxable income, which would be taxed at the basic rate of 20%, giving £608.00 tax revenue per year and NI contributions will be £717.60 per year.

ONS figures place the lowest 20% of earners paying approximately £3,488.00 in indirect taxation (VAT, tobacco, fuel, TV, etc...).

If the individual was claiming housing benefit, child benefit, etc... which if they're available to them (and why the hell not) the approximate total tax take (£4,813.00) clearly does not cover all available government services to the individual throughout the year. Where GP appointments are ~£136.00 per patient, A&E appointment ~£108.00 per visit and outpatients ~£106.00, average housing benefit claim of £4,222.92 per year, child benefit at £1076.40 per year. And it's already bust their tax contribution, so the job they are doing has to greatly enhance the business they are working for to make up the shortfall via corporation tax (that's not mentioning I've left out all possible government services that the tax take should be paying towards).

Rather speculative?

EU immigrants are more educated, younger, more likely to be in work and less likely to claim benefits than the UK-born. About 44% have some form of higher education compared with only 23% of the UK-born. About a third of EU immigrants live in London, compared with only 11% of the UK-born.


 EU immigrants pay more in taxes than they take out in welfare and the use of public services. They therefore help reduce the budget deficit. Immigrants do not have a negative effect on local services such as crime, education, health, or social housing

HMRC estimates that around 6%
of tax credit claims are from households that include an EU national in line with the share of EU nationals in the UK (House of Commons, 2014).

After trying to account for the many possible ways in which individuals pay taxes or draw welfare, Dustmann and Frattini (2014) find that EU immigrants made a positive fiscal contribution: they paid more in taxes than they received in welfare payments. For example, A8 immigrants paid in about £15 billion more than they took out in public spending in the decade up to 2011. While this effect may seem small, the longer-run impact could be substantial. The central estimate of the Office for Budget Responsibility (2013) is that the UK’s national debt will be 40 percentage points higher in 2062 if net immigration is reduced to zero from 140,000 per year. By contrast, UK nationals, as a whole, received more in benefits than they paid in
taxes.

http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/brexit05.pdf

This seems to contradict your assumptions.

BobQ

michaels wrote: »

Umm - agree with what you say but gobsmacked by this statistic - if it costs less for a patient to be seen at A&E than the GP then why on earth are we spending so much time trying to get GPs to do things rather than hospitals?

Does this include the capital investment to set up the A&E facilities compared with the GP?

If it is based on labour costs alone it is still odd. Where did it come from?

zagubov

The numbers do seem odd.

Do we still have about approximately 2000 patients per GP?

This site seems to suggest there are 5.5 consultations per patient on average (which implies to me that there are some people who are getting a lot more).

Generali

zagubov wrote: »

The numbers do seem odd.

Do we still have about approximately 2000 patients per GP?

This site seems to suggest there are 5.5 consultations per patient on average (which implies to me that there are some people who are getting a lot more).

I suspect that the Devil is in the definitions.

For example, for my first check-up after finishing cancer treatment I saw a nurse who gave me a sedative, a doctor who poked his head round the door to say Hi, a radiologist who gave me a PET scan, a hematologist who talked through next steps with me and a nurse who took my bloods.

How many consultations did I have in that visit?

lisyloo

zagubov wrote: »

The numbers do seem odd.

Do we still have about approximately 2000 patients per GP?

This site seems to suggest there are 5.5 consultations per patient on average (which implies to me that there are some people who are getting a lot more).

There's a massive variation.
A lot of young people don't go at all.
Older people can be there (or have the doctor visit) on a regular basis.

mrginge

BobQ wrote: »

Rather speculative?


http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/brexit05.pdf

This seems to contradict your assumptions.

does this study take account of the non-migrants that either are not employed, or are not trained up to do the same role?

enthusiasticsaver

From my limited experience working in a mathematics department in a Higher Education facility about half our lecturers and researchers are from the EU or elsewhere. These are highly paid jobs incurring higher rate tax and due to the lack of mathematics graduates in the UK these would be difficult to fill were we not open to immigrants. They are highly educated people so not all immigrants are in low paid jobs. I think you will find HE and the NHS are not the only area immigration is important.