Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jee1)
    We could use the millions which is currently being sent to Brussels to train 1000s of Nursers, Police, Ambulance and Fire fighters
    +The money needed to build a new Schools, Hospitals every week to cope with the population boom of this country


    #VOTELEAVE
    In the fantasy scenario of there actually being zero economic impact (a ~0.6% GDP hit would wipe out any gain at all), say for arguments sake that there is £160m able to be spent. All of the below have been touted by the Leave camp.

    This peddling of being able to:
    - Scrap Fuel VAT
    - Cut Income Tax Rates
    - Commit £100m to the NHS/yr
    - Train new Nurses, Police, Ambulance workers and Firefighters
    - Build new Schools
    - Subsidising businesses to cope with tariffs
    - Secure University Grants
    - Building New Railways + Improving Roads
    - Provide funding for Science Research
    - Supporting the steel industry.
    - Local impact funds for regions already struggling under past immigration
    - Arguably most ludicrous is the suggestion by D Hannan who said a vote to leave could result in a 60% reduction in Council Taxes, if the govt wanted to. That alone would cost £17bn!

    To put it into perspective, these commitments, in fundamental monetary terms, amount to over £100 billion, versus the ~£8.5bn paid to the EU per annum.

    The point is, and it's fairly obvious, that it's a ridiculous scheme of empty pledges to try and win over voters. They don't even have the political power to implement any of these ideas, even if they won, so they can riddle out as many as they want, and quite frankly there must be thousands. It's meaningless and quite frankly it's just as bad as any 'scaremongering'.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Axion)
    In the fantasy scenario of there actually being zero economic impact (a ~0.6% GDP hit would wipe out any gain at all), say for arguments sake that there is £160m able to be spent. All of the below have been touted by the Leave camp.

    This peddling of being able to:
    - Scrap Fuel VAT
    - Cut Income Tax Rates
    - Commit £100m to the NHS/yr
    - Train new Nurses, Police, Ambulance workers and Firefighters
    - Build new Schools
    - Subsidising businesses to cope with tariffs
    - Secure University Grants
    - Building New Railways + Improving Roads
    - Provide funding for Science Research
    - Supporting the steel industry.
    - Local impact funds for regions already struggling under past immigration
    - Arguably most ludicrous is the suggestion by D Hannan who said a vote to leave could result in a 60% reduction in Council Taxes, if the govt wanted to. That alone would cost £17bn!

    To put it into perspective, these commitments, in fundamental monetary terms, amount to over £100 billion, versus the ~£8.5bn paid to the EU per annum.

    The point is, and it's fairly obvious, that it's a ridiculous scheme of empty pledges to try and win over voters. They don't even have the political power to implement any of these ideas, even if they won, so they can riddle out as many as they want, and quite frankly there must be thousands. It's meaningless and quite frankly it's just as bad as any 'scaremongering'.
    yeah no i'm going to want a source for that "le ONE HUNDRED BILLION!!!" figure
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EuanF)
    yeah no i'm going to want a source for that "le ONE HUNDRED BILLION!!!" figure
    You're welcome: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.ne...pdf?1462262561

    Most of it is straight empirics so claims about being a 'biased' source are irrelevant(i.e. a mechanical reduction in revenue from a particular tax cut). In addition, the underlying data comes from either sensitivity analyses on most of the things/historic costs of performing such actions/direct Leave campaign figures, and expectations of what might be followed.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Axion)
    You're welcome: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.ne...pdf?1462262561

    Most of it is straight empirics so claims about being a 'biased' source are irrelevant(i.e. a mechanical reduction in revenue from a particular tax cut). In addition, the underlying data comes from either sensitivity analyses on most of the things/historic costs of performing such actions.
    Right, so first off it's only £80bn, not £100bn

    Secondly, it assumes that the costs for one-off things will be present every year

    Thirdly, it assumes the costs can not be spread over multiple years

    If we reclaim £10bn a year and spend £100bn over 10 years, there's no problem.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jneill)
    And put the economy at risk - you know, the economy that pays the taxes that really does pay for new hospitals and schools.
    The economy myth is debunked
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EuanF)
    Right, so first off it's only £80bn, not £100bn

    Secondly, it assumes that the costs for one-off things will be present every year

    Thirdly, it assumes the costs can not be spread over multiple years

    If we reclaim £10bn a year and spend £100bn over 10 years, there's no problem.
    Yeh, because building Hospitals, Schools , Roads and etc are one off costs.

    It is not as if they cost money to maintain or staff.

    Lol. I love the number given for the hospital. £735 million. The Royal Liverpool University Hospital cost 300 million just to redevelop. That doesn't even take into account the cost of running one for a year.
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by slaven)
    The economy myth is debunked
    The markets don't agree.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36526008
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EuanF)
    Right, so first off it's only £80bn, not £100bn

    Secondly, it assumes that the costs for one-off things will be present every year

    Thirdly, it assumes the costs can not be spread over multiple years

    If we reclaim £10bn a year and spend £100bn over 10 years, there's no problem.
    First off, that link is a little outdated. The Leave campaign have since put out a load of new extra pledges, so it's actually £113bn.

    Secondly, tax cuts -> reduced revenue, which are a significant proportion of touted spend, does recur year after year vs. the status quo. *@DorianGrayism makes an additional point above.

    Of course, the spending can be spread out over time, but presumably then it's spread out over governments, who almost certainly have their own ideas of how to spend money. Again, this glosses over the point, that a relatively small hit to GDP wipes out such gains in a pretty quick amount of time, and also the point that the politicians making the suggestions have very little hard political power. It's all soft suggestions about what we could do, in the potential event that there is a net saving after GDP-changes.

    Quite frankly, the Remain campaign, if they wanted to be cynical could employ EXACTLY the same argument. Pull some figure about how its economically better to remain in the EU, and then make a load of unfunded spending pledges.

    It achieves nothing and it's a cynical tactic to try and win over voters.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EuanF)
    Right, so first off it's only £80bn, not £100bn

    Secondly, it assumes that the costs for one-off things will be present every year

    Thirdly, it assumes the costs can not be spread over multiple years

    If we reclaim £10bn a year and spend £100bn over 10 years, there's no problem.
    The Vote Leave NHS promises already outweigh the "savings" of a Brexit with health promises from raising pay for junior doctors to abolishing prescription charges would cost an estimated £18.2 billion a year. That's without all the other promises made.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Axion)
    First off, that link is a little outdated. The Leave campaign have since put out a load of new extra pledges, so it's actually £113bn.

    Secondly, tax cuts -> reduced revenue, which are a significant proportion of touted spend, does recur year after year vs. the status quo. *@DorianGrayism makes an additional point above.

    Of course, the spending can be spread out over time, but presumably then it's spread out over governments, who almost certainly have their own ideas of how to spend money. Again, this glosses over the point, that a relatively small hit to GDP wipes out such gains in a pretty quick amount of time, and also the point that the politicians making the suggestions have very little hard political power. It's all soft suggestions about what we could do, in the potential event that there is a net saving after GDP-changes.

    Quite frankly, the Remain campaign, if they wanted to be cynical could employ EXACTLY the same argument. Pull some figure about how its economically better to remain in the EU, and then make a load of unfunded spending pledges.

    It achieves nothing and it's a cynical tactic to try and win over voters.
    £118million if you include yesterdays(14/6/16) announcement that Vote Leave would protect the grants and funding the EU provides.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Axion)
    In the fantasy scenario of there actually being zero economic impact (a ~0.6% GDP hit would wipe out any gain at all), say for arguments sake that there is £160m able to be spent. All of the below have been touted by the Leave camp.

    This peddling of being able to:
    - Scrap Fuel VAT
    - Cut Income Tax Rates
    - Commit £100m to the NHS/yr
    - Train new Nurses, Police, Ambulance workers and Firefighters
    - Build new Schools
    - Subsidising businesses to cope with tariffs
    - Secure University Grants
    - Building New Railways + Improving Roads
    - Provide funding for Science Research
    - Supporting the steel industry.
    - Local impact funds for regions already struggling under past immigration
    - Arguably most ludicrous is the suggestion by D Hannan who said a vote to leave could result in a 60% reduction in Council Taxes, if the govt wanted to. That alone would cost £17bn!

    To put it into perspective, these commitments, in fundamental monetary terms, amount to over £100 billion, versus the ~£8.5bn paid to the EU per annum.

    The point is, and it's fairly obvious, that it's a ridiculous scheme of empty pledges to try and win over voters. They don't even have the political power to implement any of these ideas, even if they won, so they can riddle out as many as they want, and quite frankly there must be thousands. It's meaningless and quite frankly it's just as bad as any 'scaremongering'.
    Stop the scaremongering the British public can see through the BS. I would love to know if any of you pro EU people have seen the devastating impact that immigration has had on public services.
    Because quiet frankly, we need more Schools, hospitals , Doctors, Dentists to cope with the amount of people that are currently arriving from the EU.
    Where would that money come from? Brussels??? OH don't make me laugh because that money will have to come from the UK government, our debt is rising and rising, the last thing we need is an uncontrolled number of people flooding into this small country.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Axion)
    In the fantasy scenario of there actually being zero economic impact (a ~0.6% GDP hit would wipe out any gain at all), say for arguments sake that there is £160m able to be spent. All of the below have been touted by the Leave camp.

    This peddling of being able to:
    - Scrap Fuel VAT
    - Cut Income Tax Rates
    - Commit £100m to the NHS/yr
    - Train new Nurses, Police, Ambulance workers and Firefighters
    - Build new Schools
    - Subsidising businesses to cope with tariffs
    - Secure University Grants
    - Building New Railways + Improving Roads
    - Provide funding for Science Research
    - Supporting the steel industry.
    - Local impact funds for regions already struggling under past immigration
    - Arguably most ludicrous is the suggestion by D Hannan who said a vote to leave could result in a 60% reduction in Council Taxes, if the govt wanted to. That alone would cost £17bn!

    To put it into perspective, these commitments, in fundamental monetary terms, amount to over £100 billion, versus the ~£8.5bn paid to the EU per annum.

    The point is, and it's fairly obvious, that it's a ridiculous scheme of empty pledges to try and win over voters. They don't even have the political power to implement any of these ideas, even if they won, so they can riddle out as many as they want, and quite frankly there must be thousands. It's meaningless and quite frankly it's just as bad as any 'scaremongering'.
    By my reckoning if we take the net figure it takes a 1.1% or so contraction, if we take post rebate gross its to nearly 2%, and pre rebate gross nearly 2.5%, not 0.6%

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jee1)
    Because quiet frankly, we need more Schools, hospitals , Doctors, Dentists to cope with the amount of people that are currently arriving from the EU.
    Actually, the impact on immigration on Hospitals is pretty small. The issue is that there are a growing number of elderly people coming in that are not properly looked after.

    In fact, without immigrants manning teams, then Hospitals would be a complete disaster zone.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    In fact, without immigrants manning teams, then Hospitals would be a complete disaster zone.
    This is the most irritating repeated dumb comment of this entire campaign.

    Literally no-one is calling to close the border to skilled workers we need in this country.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generallee)
    Leave: 46% (+3)Remain: 39% (-3)Don’t Know: 11% (nc)Would Not Vote: 4% (nc)

    Source: Guido Fawkes website

    Yesssss!! We can really do this guys!
    it cant be a coincidence that the leave vote shoots up immediatly after major terrorist attacks (regardless of where they occur)
    unfortunatly it never been a better time to be a reactionery voter - andso the usually passive young non voter could actually cause the uk to go into isolation from europe - ironic as its the youngs fufure that is most affected
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sun_Bear)
    Look, i'm not a Boeing expert and won't claim to be one. All i know i that in an interview with Andrew Neil, George Osborne used Boeing as an example of a company which will leave the UK in result of a Brexit. Boeing have since said they are remaining in UK regardless of outcome so i am very sceptical...
    Boeing is a poor choice of a company affected by Brexit. The fact Osborne chose it doesn't make it a good choice. Their employees are essentially providing support to US manufactured products sold into the UK market.

    AWACS and 737s will still be flying from the UK regardless of Brexit.

    Siemens have about 14000 UK employees. Most of what they make here or support from here is not sold into the UK market. They have too many worldwide plants and most of what they do here is mirrored in other plants abroad.

    Siemens statement on Brexit is in part:

    In addition to the benefits of EU membership, we have concerns about what Brexit could mean in practice. Most commentators agree that a Brexit would disrupt the economy in the short-term and we believe that uncertainty about the UK’s future relationship with the EU could have more significant and negative long-term effects. In particular, a new trade deal with the EU could take many years to conclude and it is impossible to predict the terms that will be agreed and at what price. This uncertainty, and threat of increased costs, could make the UK a less attractive place to do business and may become a factor when Siemens is considering future investment here.

    Finally, while Siemens does not see any upsides for our business from a potential Brexit, we also wish to make clear that the UK will remain an important market for us in the future. In our view, however, a decision to stay in the EU would be the right one for Britain and for the economy, and it would make it far easier for Siemens to continue to invest in and grow our business in the UK.
    Reading between the lines. "We may well pull out of making things in Britain, but we think you haven't got any choice but to buy the things we make regardless of tariffs and so we intend to continue to flog you these goods from our European plants"
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    This is the most irritating repeated dumb comment of this entire campaign.

    Literally no-one is calling to close the border to skilled workers we need in this country.
    Literally no-one was trying to stop bright Indian students applying to Russell Group universities. However as soon as we closed down a lot of bogus colleges and cracked down on Indian student immigration scams, lots of these bright Indian students chose Australia and the USA to study in instead.

    Highly skilled workers have a choice of destination and the fact we want them doesn't mean they will come here.

    Emigration is also likely to increase if we Brexit. It is no coincidence that the idea of the "brain drain" which was so significant in the 1960s and 1970s evaporated after free movement of workers came into effect. We replaced talented Britons going abroad with talented foreigners. The closing of the single market for labour won't affect the sort of people who will emigrate from Britain. This is emigration through lifestyle choice not because of the absence of UK jobs.

    British retirees are likely to move back to the UK in the event of Brexit as they become worried about access to European health services and the risk that the ex-pat property market will decline through the absence of future demand.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Literally no-one was trying to stop bright Indian students applying to Russell Group universities. However as soon as we closed down a lot of bogus colleges and cracked down on Indian student immigration scams, lots of these bright Indian students chose Australia and the USA to study in instead.

    Highly skilled workers have a choice of destination and the fact we want them doesn't mean they will come here.
    No, but presently they want to come here, correct? Are we supposing here that skilled workers who have looked seriously into moving to another country are going to be put off from doing so by having to show that they are, in fact, skilled workers? That seems a rather far-fetched supposition to me, and I don't think it is demonstrated to be accurate by one instance of Indian students being put off coming here as a result of certain government actions. These matters are surely more fact specific than that.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    No, but presently they want to come here, correct? Are we supposing here that skilled workers who have looked seriously into moving to another country are going to be put off from doing so by having to show that they are, in fact, skilled workers? That seems a rather far-fetched supposition to me, and I don't think it is demonstrated to be accurate by one instance of Indian students being put off coming here as a result of certain government actions. These matters are surely more fact specific than that.
    The point is that Indian students' decision was not really a rational one. It was probably rationalised in their parents' minds by perceiving the crack down, probably wrongly, as the UK making a substantial anti-immigration or anti-foreigner or anti-non-white lurch.

    The example doesn't prove that skilled workers will make the same irrational decision, but the similarities between the two situations mean that Leave cannot simply answer the question about skilled immigration by saying "it would be irrational for there to be any change in attitude on skilled immigrants' part". There is a considerable risk of a similar irrational decision, particularly because our competitors for those skilled immigrants are under no obligation not to misrepresent the position.

    This is a recruitment agency

    http://www.medacs.com/blog/2013/11/0...s#.V2ISMaLxWw8

    And look at the line:-

    Very often, immigration worries are overtaking professional thoughts for non-EU overseas doctors in the UK," Dr Mukherjee said.
    That isn't rational. Anyone able to get a work permit as a doctor shouldn't then be worrying about immigration issues, but the suggestion is that they are.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    The point is that Indian students' decision was not really a rational one. It was probably rationalised in their parents' minds by perceiving the crack down, probably wrongly, as the UK making a substantial anti-immigration or anti-foreigner or anti-non-white lurch.

    The example doesn't prove that skilled workers will make the same irrational decision, but the similarities between the two situations mean that Leave cannot simply answer the question about skilled immigration by saying "it would be irrational for there to be any change in attitude on skilled immigrants' part". There is a considerable risk of a similar irrational decision, particularly because our competitors for those skilled immigrants are under no obligation not to misrepresent the position.

    This is a recruitment agency

    http://www.medacs.com/blog/2013/11/0...s#.V2ISMaLxWw8

    And look at the line:-



    That isn't rational. Anyone able to get a work permit as a doctor shouldn't then be worrying about immigration issues, but the suggestion is that they are.
    Oh, well, sure, but aren't there counters to that other than having open borders with one small part of the global pool of skilled workers? Perhaps simply making absolutely clear that skilled workers won't have trouble coming here would be a start. (Whereas, at present, my understanding is that, if they are from outside the EU, they are right to think that they may face difficulties.)
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.