If we vote for Brexit what happens

ukcarper

saverbuyer wrote: »

So you don't think the ones buying in 2007 were a bit... thick? Maybe !!!!!!? 30% rise in 2006 told me there was a crash coming.


I'm in the North so no escape from the negative equity for a few decades yet, never mind a few years. No escape for anyone in Ireland outside of Dublin really.

Thick like all the people in London and the south east who's properties are now worth 50% more.

jimbog

iantojones40 wrote: »

I appreciate this is a rather difficult concept for the hard of thinking to grasp, but you do realise that all other houses will equally have "brilliant" price rises so you won't be in any better position at all, in fact it will cost you more if you wish to trade up to a bigger house or nicer area, or are you hoping that your house will be the only one on the market to have a "brilliant" rise in price?

Nothing in divadee's post shows an unawareness of that point

glasgowdan

iantojones40 wrote: »

you seem to be terrified about the prospect of anything other than never ending rampant hpi for ever and ever.

Where? Evidence please. I'm honestly just a bit bemused, surprised and frustrated that people like you and crashy legend keep saying things that are plainly wrong, as if they're facts. I can only assume you're educated, given you can log on to a device and spell correctly, so why keep making stuff up?

Yes, I am fortunate I know. I have done well in business and life and I appreciate it. There are many others in similar positions.

And now that we're all clear that you ARE looking for a house, your desperation to encourage others to believe in HPC becomes clear.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

migrants don't pay over the odds in taxes : you believe they mainly have low paid jobs (the one's you call crap) so clearly don't get anywhere near paying a proportionate share of tax, which is mainly paid by the higher paid.

The displacement factor means you need to account for the whole system.

The taxes corporations pays are partially accountable to the migrants (if they were not here and the population were lower tesco would clearly make less profit)

The taxes everyone else who is displaced up are partially accountable to the migrations (if they were not here picking the strawberries and stacking the shelves then someone on a higher income and paying more taxes would be pushed down to that level of tax payments)


Overall taxes in the UK are ~£20k per worker*. This is roughly the contribution of a migrant be they a shelf stacker on £12k or a doctor on £120k or even the migrant football star on £12 million a year. Their effective contribution is the same £20k per worker even if individually their tax bills say something different

You can use this to have an estimate of a migrants contribution. If we import a million working age 25-30 year old migrants in good health and they all take low paid jobs (or any jobs for that matter) their contribution would be ~£20 billion in taxes per yr. Their use of pensions/healthcare/education/additonal-military/etc will be close to zero. I would guess that of the £20 billion they pay they probably only take back out £2 billion which would put their net contribution at ~£18 billion. Bring in 3 million such migrants and you close the deficit completely. Further growth can be used to cut taxes or increase spending rather than close the now gone deficit. Bring in 8 million such people and you can close the deficit and also scrap VAT.

I do appreciate that about 30 years from now they too will then have a public sector demand profile more close to the locals but that is 30 years of gravy for the locals. and overall they will still be taking out less as a foreign country paid for their early years and education etc. Also yes we dont only import healthy 25-30 year olds we import some older people and some not so healthy people and even some criminals. Overall the demographic profile of a migrant is better than that of the locals (this is an assumption on my part but I feel its a good one and one I will use unless proven otherwise) which means they take less and give more almost irrespective of what job they are doing. The same arguments also would apply to importing the same number of migrants who are high pay high skill. Their taxes need to reflect the lower taxes paid by the locals that are pushed down



*it needs to be amended a bit to take into account taxes pensioners pay directly or indirectly.

nubbins

iantojones40 wrote: »

I don't think I've ever come across anybody on the internet or even in "real life" who is as desperate as you are to convince everyone what a perfect life you have, some of your posts are quite bizarre.

For somebody who claims to be in such a secure and comfortable position you seem to be terrified about the prospect of anything other than never ending rampant hpi for ever and ever.

If, and that's a BIG IF, you genuinely are in the position you claim to be in then you are extremely atypical of anyone who has purchased s home in recent years and you must have some truly exceptional circumstances, either a huge deposit or a massive income in relation to your local house prices, so for you to be devoting so much time and effort to encouraging people to buy, buy, BUY! Regardless of the cost is highly irresponsible of you

but Ian you wanted to buy in March, you were a little eager beaver disappointed that your 6 offers (at 8% under ask) were rejected. What has happened between then and now to make you so bitter and green eyed. Did you sell up sometime around 2014/15 expecting a crash and then realised you had made a terrible mistake in March 2016?

Conrad

The plan we've all been waiting for, at last, by the Minister that wrote the first passporting directive and implemented the single market programme


Read it carefully, it's alchemy




http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2016/09/peter-lilley-brexit-should-be-swift-heres-how-to-do-it.html




Peter Lilley is a former Secretary of State for Trade & Industy and for Social Security, and is MP for Hitchin & Harpenden.



Project Fear did not become a self-fulfilling prophecy. But Remain made the legitimate point that a prolonged period of uncertainty could damage the economy. So we should aim to complete Brexit as rapidly as possible


Unfortunately, the impression has taken hold that Brexit is an interminable process. The haunting last couplet of the Eagle’s hit ‘Hotel California’ has been likened to leaving the EU: “You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave!” Gus O’Donnell suggested that negotiations could go on for a lifetime; John Major predicted it will take over a decade.

But there is another line in ‘Hotel California’ which describes their mental predicament: “We are just prisoners here, of our own device”. They may devise imaginary obstacles to keep us in Hotel Europe indefinitely, but there is no reason why Brexit should be interminable. In fact, it need not take even the two years arbitrarily specified in Article 50.
Joining the EC was far more complex than leaving: we had to introduce Value Added Tax, transform our farm support, implement all existing EU laws, replace Commonwealth Preference by EU tariffs and much else. That took barely two years.


Here is how we can expedite the process.

• We must distinguish between issues which are matters for decision by the UK and those which are matters for negotiation with the EU. The widespread presumption that everything is a matter for negotiation is damaging nonsense. It leads officials to suppose that we can do nothing until we have laboriously assessed what can be traded off against what in a multi-dimensional game of diplomacy. Once we identify the issues which we can decide, Ministers can start taking decisions. That immediately reduces uncertainty. It also narrows the focus for negotiations which will render them simpler.

• The first decision we should take is to convert all EU legislation and regulations into UK law. It might seem paradoxical that Eurosceptics should propose this. But it will:

- Provide businesses with certainty: they will be able to run themselves in the same way the day after Brexit as before,
- Mean that Parliament can amend, repeal or improve any law subsequently.
- Ease the Parliamentary passage of leaving legislation by depriving die-hard Remainers of excuses to oppose it.
It is more or less what countries like India, Canada and Australia did when they became independent: they initially adopted British laws as their own.

• Then we should reassure EU residents already working here that they will be allowed to remain. That will end uncertainty for them and their employers. Using them as bargaining counters in case EU member states threaten to expel UK residents – which none has – is abhorrent and unprecedented. When Uganda expelled British passport holders we did not even contemplate expelling Ugandan citizens.

But that risks provoking a ‘closing down sale’ influx from the EU. So we need to announce that EU citizens arriving henceforth will face the same limits on work as apply to citizens of other friendly countries. (Incidentally, should such action be ruled out by the ECJ while we are still members of the EU we could, under the Vienna Convention, resile from the EU Treaties without going through the Article 50 process.)
The more such decisions we take, the clearer it will be to our partners what scope there is for negotiation. The first rule for a successful negotiation is to narrow the scope to the essentials. The main item for negotiation will then be the terms on which the EU and UK will trade with each other. By ruling out free movement of labour, we have closed off the unattractive option of joining the EEA. The EEA was devised for countries whose governments wanted to join the EU, but whose people were reluctant. It is an ante-room, not a departure lounge.

• So there are only two realistic outcomes for the future trading relationship between the UK and the EU. Either the UK and the EU27 agree to continue to trade freely with each other without tariffs. Or the UK and the EU27 apply to imports from each other the WTO tariffs which we currently apply to the EUs biggest trading partners – USA, Russia, China.

• Both options are pretty simple. Unlike negotiations to remove complex tariffs between countries, retaining zero tariffs is simplicity itself. Likewise, the EU has a common external tariff which we will inherit. That is the highest tariff we could apply to each other. Applying that to each other is less desirable than continuing tariff free trade, but it is equally simple – and requires no negotiation at all.

• Moreover, both are acceptable to the UK, and preferable to the present situation. Continuing tariff-free trade (plus passporting of financial services) is only negotiable if we are willing to walk away with no deal: i.e. trading on a WTO basis. Fortunately, we can. The average tariff our exporters to the EU would face would be about four per cent (that includes agricultural products: manufactures average 2.4 per cent). Given the 12 per cent exchange rate movement in favour of our exporters, they would remain better off. By contrast, continental exporters would have to absorb the tariffs on top of a 12 per cent loss of competitiveness

Tariff-free access is certainly not worth continuing our net budget contribution of £10 billion, which is equivalent to a seven per cent tariff. In any case, it is a myth to suppose that the EU will only give tariff-free access to its internal market in return for a budgetary contribution and accepting free movement of labour. The EU has free trade agreements with over 50 countries, all but three of which involve neither budgetary contribution nor free movement.

• The other aspect of access to the EU’s internal market is ‘passporting’. The value of passporting rights, though worth keeping, should not be exaggerated. I say that as the Minister who negotiated the first passporting directive and later implemented the Single Market programme.

UK-based financial services firms have passporting rights as a member of the EU.
- But so too under the the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MIFID2) Directive financial services companies from countries such as the US, Hong Kong and Singapore, whose financial regulatory systems are deemed to have ‘regulatory equivalence’, as would the UK’s.
- Most British Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities (UCITS) funds choose to operate via companies set up in Luxembourg and Dublin, rather than using their passport from London. They should therefore be unaffected by our exit. More revealing, however, is that they found the value of low tax in these countries more than offset the extra cost of setting up companies which passporting from London would have avoided. This puts a pretty modest value on passporting.

- The growth in UK financial services exports to the EU does not show any marked change since passports were introduced.
- British financial companies seem to export very successfully without passports to countries such s the USA and Switzerland – our two largest markets.
- Most of British financial services business is wholesale, whereas passports are largely designed to facilitate retail business.




In the event that continental governments prevaricate on reaching a trade deal we should simply announce that, for the time being, we will maintain our zero tariffs on imports from the EU – unless they choose to impose WTO tariffs on us, in which case we will reciprocate. (We need not worry whether retaining the status quo without a formal agreement after we have left the EU is compatible with WTO rules. The EU itself has not updated its registered tariffs since enlarging from 15 members! Objectors would have to prove not merely that the rules have been infringed – which is debatable – but that they have been harmed. And that would take a long time.)
The onus would then be on the EU 27 to continue free trade – or take the blame for triggering tariffs on their exports to their biggest market. Continental governments contemplating this would face the wrath of German car makers and unions, French wine growers, Dutch cut flower-growers, etc for initiating an unnecessary tariff battle in which they lose more than we do.
This, incidentally, suggests we should confront continental governments with this choice before the French, German and Dutch elections next year. The Commission may want to ‘punish’ the UK for leaving the EU – but continental electors will baulk at that if it means them losing tariff-free access to the British market on which their jobs depend.

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

The displacement factor means you need to account for the whole system.

The taxes corporations pays are partially accountable to the migrants (if they were not here and the population were lower tesco would clearly make less profit)

If we had fewer immigrants, we would have invested in productivity improvement rather that relying of cheap imported labour, so the profits of our major corporations would have been higher, as would the per capita income and wealthfare of the people.

We would also have needed to spend a lot less taxation as we wouldn't have had to upgrade infrastructure to cater for the large population again increasing the wealthfare of the UK people.

The taxes everyone else who is displaced up are partially accountable to the migrations (if they were not here picking the strawberries and stacking the shelves then someone on a higher income and paying more taxes would be pushed down to that level of tax payments)

we know the major impact is to suppress wages of the poorest; there is little or no dispalcement up but plenty downwards.
Although at the moment, we have high levels of employment that hasn't been the case in the past, and unless you believe we have abolished doom and bust, it won't be true in the future : economic cycles will still apply. So immigrants will be causing higher unemplyment and hence benefits.

Overall taxes in the UK are ~£20k per worker*. This is roughly the contribution of a migrant be they a shelf stacker on £12k or a doctor on £120k or even the migrant football star on £12 million a year. Their effective contribution is the same £20k per worker even if individually their tax bills say something different

You can use this to have an estimate of a migrants contribution. If we import a million working age 25-30 year old migrants in good health and they all take low paid jobs (or any jobs for that matter) their contribution would be ~£20 billion in taxes per yr. Their use of pensions/healthcare/education/additonal-military/etc will be close to zero. I would guess that of the £20 billion they pay they probably only take back out £2 billion which would put their net contribution at ~£18 billion. Bring in 3 million such migrants and you close the deficit completely. Further growth can be used to cut taxes or increase spending rather than close the now gone deficit. Bring in 8 million such people and you can close the deficit and also scrap VAT.

I do appreciate that about 30 years from now they too will then have a public sector demand profile more close to the locals but that is 30 years of gravy for the locals. and overall they will still be taking out less as a foreign country paid for their early years and education etc. Also yes we dont only import healthy 25-30 year olds we import some older people and some not so healthy people and even some criminals. Overall the demographic profile of a migrant is better than that of the locals (this is an assumption on my part but I feel its a good one and one I will use unless proven otherwise) which means they take less and give more almost irrespective of what job they are doing. The same arguments also would apply to importing the same number of migrants who are high pay high skill. Their taxes need to reflect the lower taxes paid by the locals that are pushed down

The idea we are better off because we didn't spend money 20 years ago is laughable

Anyway, if this nonsense was true then my proposed scatter graph of population against per capita GDP would easily prove your point (although that wouldn't account for other bad effects of poor housing, health services etc.)

divadee

iantojones40 wrote: »

I appreciate this is a rather difficult concept for the hard of thinking to grasp, but you do realise that all other houses will equally have "brilliant" price rises so you won't be in any better position at all, in fact it will cost you more if you wish to trade up to a bigger house or nicer area, or are you hoping that your house will be the only one on the market to have a "brilliant" rise in price?

Eerrrrrr no. Where in my post have I said that I was 'hoping' my house will be the only one to rise in price. What I was saying is to me it's primarily out home and always will be. In 25 years (or earlier as we are hoping to overpay) it will be all ours. I'm not paying £100 a month more to pay off someone else's mortgage. I am paying off equity in OUR HOME every month. I am not having someone else tell us we can't do this or that to the property. I'm not having petty letting agents inspecting the property every 3 months.

If we move of course I know we will have to pay more for a bigger property. But that would happen if their was a crash and all homes became cheaper. Some properties are always going to be more expensive than mine! A crash won't make a blind but of difference.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

Anyway, if this nonsense was true then my proposed scatter graph of population against per capita GDP would easily prove your point

I dont have the time to draw that for you im sure you can find the data and do it yourself. Keep to just uk cities/towns/regions

Both more people and more density is urbanization a factor quite recognized and accepted as a powerful means of development.

Its a shame your brexit love affair has clouded your judgement on what I was trying to explain. Its clear the higher population especially of migrants are large net contributors and act to increase local productivity and wages. Its not like if you accept it the dozen people on this forum are somehow going to change the brexit vote or future direction of the country.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

If we had fewer immigrants, we would have invested in productivity improvement rather that relying of cheap imported labour, so the profits of our major corporations would have been higher, as would the per capita income and wealthfare of the people.

nonsense

We would also have needed to spend a lot less taxation as we wouldn't have had to upgrade infrastructure to cater for the large population again increasing the wealthfare of the UK people.

We have benefited far more from the sharing of infrastructure and that cost saving than we have spent on additional capacity. Like I have already mentioned we spent close to nil on power stations (above and beyond what we would have done) thanks to 'digital tech' such as LED light bulbs and more efficient appliances. Or think of the software 'infrastructure' the governments IT systems for everything from local council to the NHS to HMRC is spread at nil (or v.close to nil) additional cost amongst more people.

we know the major impact is to suppress wages of the poorest; there is little or no dispalcement up but plenty downwards.

Why is this difficult for you? if you have 1% unemployment now and 1% in twenty years. Then if one segment of society taxes lower skill and pay jobs then clearly it pushes others up. This is basic math

Although at the moment, we have high levels of employment that hasn't been the case in the past, and unless you believe we have abolished doom and bust, it won't be true in the future : economic cycles will still apply. So immigrants will be causing higher unemplyment and hence benefits.

sounds like you are ever so slightly trying to backtrack here.
Anyway, yes there might be another downturn for 2 years every 20 years. In such a case it does not mean for those 2 years had the migrants not been around there would not have been a recession. Does pure skin japan not suffer recessions? even if you thought such nonsense you would still be 18 plus 2 minus

The idea we are better off because we didn't spend money 20 years ago is laughable

??