Levelling up means less money for london

Watch
richard10012
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#1
The government has axe London higher education fund, I understand that the government wants to spend money on the north but London needs investment. We pay taxes down here as well. There is a massive housing crisis in London.
0
reply
MatureStudent37
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 weeks ago
#2
(Original post by richard10012)
The government has axe London higher education fund, I understand that the government wants to spend money on the north but London needs investment. We pay taxes down here as well. There is a massive housing crisis in London.
Don’t live in london. It’s cheaper to live outside of it.

Table 1.2 and 1.3 shows that London gets more than its fair share.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...-november-2020

Explain to me why my tax money should be spent on you?
0
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 weeks ago
#3
**** London, they already get plenty of investment.
0
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 weeks ago
#4
(Original post by MatureStudent37)
Don’t live in london. It’s cheaper to live outside of it.

Table 1.2 and 1.3 shows that London gets more than its fair share.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...-november-2020

Explain to me why my tax money should be spent on you?
Fair share depending on what? On population, or on area - then yes.

But compared to income? London, I believe (I wrote about this a few years ago, could have changed since) is one of the very few places in the UK that contributes more in tax revenue than it spends. It generates a surplus each year, hence why the government is generally pretty happy to invest in it - despite poring money into London, it generates more.

The question isn't does London get its fair share, its how much of the money generated by London do we need to re-locate to areas that are not economically profitable to try and raise them up a bit.

Most of the north spends far more than it generates, and can only do so because of the income directed to them from London, but arguably also can't progress because of how hard it is to foster economic prosperity when something like london is only a few hours away, sucking in all the economic activity..

London is a blessing and a curse - its because of how efficient it is as a money making city that the rest of the country can afford the services they do.. but equally because its so centralised and large, it sucks in revenue sources that could be spread elsewhere, making it harder for those other areas to stand on their own. Ideally I'd want things to be less centralised, but its very very hard to change that now, without some really really heavy-handed government policy.

The londoner/sarcastic answer to why it should be spent on them is because they earned it.
Last edited by fallen_acorns; 3 weeks ago
2
reply
harrysbar
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 weeks ago
#5
(Original post by fallen_acorns)
The londoner/sarcastic answer to why it should be spent on them is because they earned it.
Yup
0
reply
MatureStudent37
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 weeks ago
#6
(Original post by fallen_acorns)
Fair share depending on what? On population, or on area - then yes.

But compared to income? London, I believe (I wrote about this a few years ago, could have changed since) is one of the very few places in the UK that contributes more in tax revenue than it spends. It generates a surplus each year, hence why the government is generally pretty happy to invest in it - despite poring money into London, it generates more.

The question isn't does London get its fair share, its how much of the money generated by London do we need to re-locate to areas that are not economically profitable to try and raise them up a bit.

Most of the north spends far more than it generates, and can only do so because of the income directed to them from London, but arguably also can't progress because of how hard it is to foster economic prosperity when something like london is only a few hours away, sucking in all the economic activity..

London is a blessing and a curse - its because of how efficient it is as a money making city that the rest of the country can afford the services they do.. but equally because its so centralised and large, it sucks in revenue sources that could be spread elsewhere, making it harder for those other areas to stand on their own. Ideally I'd want things to be less centralised, but its very very hard to change that now, without some really really heavy-handed government policy.

The londoner/sarcastic answer to why it should be spent on them is because they earned it.
Take a map of Europe and there’s a lovely sausage shape you can overlay going from the Midlands, Incorporating London, Holland, Belgium eastern France, western Germany, Switzerland and northern Italy. Those are the wealth generating areas of Europe. It’s known as the corridor of economy power)

The reasons behind these are complex and historical. London has developed because of its historic transport links through the Thames and being the seat of power. Around the seat of power, finance houses have wanted to be located by the central bank, and with the finance houses, come the insurance company’s and law firms. Because of the rest of the country behind it, London has had been able to grow to become a world leader in wha it does that allows it to generate more money. My because it’s London, but because it’s the capital city of what was the largest empire the world had ever seen. Money flowed in not just because of the finance houses, but because of the U.K. based trade being exported out of the U.K. throughout the world.

In order to have a long term sustainable future, the whole of the U.K. needs to prosper, that involves investment. London’s finance services can’t prosper without the ultimate backing of the U.K. taxpayer as a whole, and the U.K. taxpayer therefore can’t be solely reliable on London’s financial centre.
0
reply
Joinedup
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 weeks ago
#7
(Original post by fallen_acorns)
Fair share depending on what? On population, or on area - then yes.

But compared to income? London, I believe (I wrote about this a few years ago, could have changed since) is one of the very few places in the UK that contributes more in tax revenue than it spends. It generates a surplus each year, hence why the government is generally pretty happy to invest in it - despite poring money into London, it generates more.

The question isn't does London get its fair share, its how much of the money generated by London do we need to re-locate to areas that are not economically profitable to try and raise them up a bit.

Most of the north spends far more than it generates, and can only do so because of the income directed to them from London, but arguably also can't progress because of how hard it is to foster economic prosperity when something like london is only a few hours away, sucking in all the economic activity..

London is a blessing and a curse - its because of how efficient it is as a money making city that the rest of the country can afford the services they do.. but equally because its so centralised and large, it sucks in revenue sources that could be spread elsewhere, making it harder for those other areas to stand on their own. Ideally I'd want things to be less centralised, but its very very hard to change that now, without some really really heavy-handed government policy.

The londoner/sarcastic answer to why it should be spent on them is because they earned it.
I've wondered for a while how much of the profit from operations occurring outside London get counted as 'London profit' because when a regional company gets successful it typically sets up a registered office in London which is the address that pays the tax.
0
reply
MatureStudent37
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 weeks ago
#8
(Original post by Joinedup)
I've wondered for a while how much of the profit from operations occurring outside London get counted as 'London profit' because when a regional company gets successful it typically sets up a registered office in London which is the address that pays the tax.
It’s very difficult to do. I think they’re literally just correlating versus the postcode of the head office.

I suppose for larger organisations like Tesco they may be publishing in their accounts revenue per region, but I don’t think the system is that clever enough and there’s enough people to work on the system.

The last time the SNP tried to launch Scotland into the abyss, the very important financial services just relocated head offices to london to Edinburgh for tax purposes. Nobody moved, the head office was just re registered.

Because of that Edinburgh went from the 15th largest financial centre in the world to 74th pretty much over night.

The best way to calculate though is looking at peoples PAYE as that’s verbally associated with a salary and a home address.

I’ve no doubt London pays it’s way, but it’s cramped, becoming ever more expensive for normal people to live .

London gets a lot of infrastructure spend, but it is a densely populated area, a major financial centre, one of the few mega cities in the world and the seat of government for a G7 nation.

What we are seeing however is business move out of London in order to save costs. Deutsche bank has moved its back office operations to Birmingham to save a fortune. The Ministry of Defence have relocated all non essential activities to Bath in order to save money.

Any public sector job based in London requires ‘London weighting’ added onto the wage bill. Any one of those jobs moved outside London saves the tax payer £s.

Pop quiz. Why’s Birmingham the UKs second city?
Last edited by MatureStudent37; 3 weeks ago
0
reply
harrysbar
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 weeks ago
#9
(Original post by MatureStudent37)
Pop quiz. Why’s Birmingham the UKs second city?
Size of population, no?
(expecting a klaxon and alarm bells to go off)
0
reply
MatureStudent37
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 weeks ago
#10
(Original post by harrysbar)
Size of population, no?
(expecting a klaxon and alarm bells to go off)
That may be part of it.

It has all of the Financial and legal services there that are required, capable and experienced, in order to conduct a large scale business takeover.

Edinburgh has quite a large financial services footprint but lacks the legal expertise.

I found it inter eating atleast
Last edited by MatureStudent37; 3 weeks ago
0
reply
hotpud
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 weeks ago
#11
(Original post by fallen_acorns)
Fair share depending on what? On population, or on area - then yes.

But compared to income? London, I believe (I wrote about this a few years ago, could have changed since) is one of the very few places in the UK that contributes more in tax revenue than it spends. It generates a surplus each year, hence why the government is generally pretty happy to invest in it - despite poring money into London, it generates more.

The question isn't does London get its fair share, its how much of the money generated by London do we need to re-locate to areas that are not economically profitable to try and raise them up a bit.

Most of the north spends far more than it generates, and can only do so because of the income directed to them from London, but arguably also can't progress because of how hard it is to foster economic prosperity when something like london is only a few hours away, sucking in all the economic activity..

London is a blessing and a curse - its because of how efficient it is as a money making city that the rest of the country can afford the services they do.. but equally because its so centralised and large, it sucks in revenue sources that could be spread elsewhere, making it harder for those other areas to stand on their own. Ideally I'd want things to be less centralised, but its very very hard to change that now, without some really really heavy-handed government policy.

The londoner/sarcastic answer to why it should be spent on them is because they earned it.
Its a fair point. But look at what London has that the north does not. You are massively connected. And hour commute into London extends a good 60+ miles away and even into Northern France. And once you get to London you can get about the city really easily and cheaply using a variety of exceedingly frequent and easy to use transport systems. There is also the fact that much of the commerce and business of London is focussed in the centre.

Contrast that to the north and you have an infrastructure system that hasn't really been invested in since the 60s when they tor up much of the railways that used to connect regions. As a result, businesses don't particularly focus on city centres and might be located anywhere. If you take somewhere like Leeds or Manchester, if you live in the north, accessing a job in the south is practically impossible. And hour's commute in Greater Manchester for most people extends about 15 miles at best, perhaps 20 miles if you have easy access to a motorway. So opportunities are limited. And if you do have access to the transport network, you are looking at travelling on the trains London got rid of when it replaced its 20+ year old stock and if you are really lucky, you will get three trains an hour to say nothing of the train every 2 minutes you get on the London Underground.

Sure, if you invest in London, you will always get a return and that has been driving investment decisions for the last 40 years or so. But the bottom line is that the north has had no investment at all in the last 40 - 50 years and the economic progress of that shows. If places like Manchester, Leeds or Liverpool had the kind of infrastructure London and the South East enjoys and would be surprised if they weren't powerhouses like London too.
0
reply
richard10012
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#12
Is this why London and the surrounding area so expensive due to the government spending a lot of it? Will the north become like London once more money is spent on it
0
reply
harrysbar
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 weeks ago
#13
(Original post by richard10012)
Is this why London and the surrounding area so expensive due to the government spending a lot of it? Will the north become like London once more money is spent on it
you also need to sort your weather out
0
reply
Final Fantasy
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report 2 weeks ago
#14
Nah forget London. South Wales needs the investment.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#15
Report 2 weeks ago
#15
London might well need investment but its a matter of fact the north and general regions need it more.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Which of these would you use to help with making uni decisions?

Webinars (71)
12.14%
Virtual campus tours/open days (142)
24.27%
Live streaming events (51)
8.72%
Online AMAs/guest lectures (55)
9.4%
A uni comparison tool (136)
23.25%
An in-person event when available (130)
22.22%

Watched Threads

View All