TOP STORIES
CARTOONS
MAGIC MONEY TREE
POSH GRAMMAR
OSBORNE KERCHING!!
PROMISES PROMISES
SOUTHERN FAIL
DUMB POLLSTERS
DON'T BLAME TRUMP!
£13bn APPLE TAX DODGE
SAFE SEATS = BREXIT?
UKIP v LABOUR
ALL OUT OF IT TOGETHER
EU IMMIGRATION
TORY v TORY
PRISON SUICIDES
LONDON LEAVES UK!
EU v TORY MANDATE
HMRC IS A TAX HAVEN
PANAMA TAX LEAK
IDS v IDS
RICH v POOR
POSH BOYS
HELP2BUY PROFITEERS
LLOYDS, RBS CEO PAY
HSBC DRUG MONEY
PM'S MUM FIGHTS CUTS
PEAK "STUFF" IS HERE
HMRC GOOGLY
PENSION TAX RAID
Showing posts with label immigration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label immigration. Show all posts

Saturday, 13 May 2017

Saturday, May 13, 2017 Posted by Hari No comments Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,
A pound’s worth of product is not worth a pound when you’ve made it. It’s worth a pound when someone has bought it. That’s why Britain needs a pay rise.

There’s no rise in UK sales without a rise in UK incomes. That’s why we’ve not had a recovery. Only a recovery in credit card debt!

Whichever party understands that, vote for them.

Wages have flatlined since July 2005, says the Office for National Statistics. But it’s worse than that. Notoriously, the Average Weekly Earnings (AWE) data never include the earnings of the self employed, which have been getting worse, so that means there has been an overall decline.


If you’ve been one of the lucky ones who have seen his/her earnings increase, you have a counterpart who saw the opposite. As the graph tells us, the more you earned the more someone else didn’t. So if you’re trying to sell them something, you’re in trouble too.

Those people earning less: are they all lazy and stupid? Nigh on half the workforce?!

A balance must be struck between earnings rising too fast (businesses and their customers can’t afford it. So the business goes bust) and too slow or not at all (businesses can fill their shelves, but nobody can afford to buy the damn stuff. So the business goes bust). That balance has been lost since the 1970s. For too long wages, as a percentage of the nation’s GDP, have been falling.

 

That 10% drop in the UK’s wages bill, compared to 50 years ago, equates to around £100bn a year in spending being taken off our high streets.

Now take a look at the list of sectors where wages are falling. If your business depends on selling to people working in those sectors, you’d better pray they get a pay rise.




Yes, I said pray. Because businesses, in competition, find it genuinely difficult to coordinate a pay rise lest someone breaks ranks and win-wins by keeping pay down while selling to those who got the rise. That’s why unions do us all a favour, by coordinating that pay rise. Government too, by legislating that rise.

The Resolution Foundation, digging into Office for National Statistics data on wages, says around 40 per cent of the workforce are in sectors where pay is falling in real terms.

This is despite another “good performance” on jobs, with fast growth in hours worked, employment remaining at a record high and unemployment falling by 45,000. Although, notoriously again, the official employment data says anyone who has worked a measly one hour a week is “employed”. One hour! What a job that must be!

We’re wasting our time if jobs are being created, but incomes aren’t rising. We’re driving with the hand brake on.

“But having a job matters more than having a pay rise!” says the tub thumping right, who see low pay as a way of creating jobs. These are the same people who say “Those Commies, they think full employment matters more than growing the economy.” They’re asking for the same thing as the Commies now. Beautiful! Someone should tell them that if wages don’t rise, economies simply don’t grow *.

 


* ...except, of course, through immigration. More people, more GDP. Simples. No wonder neither New Labour nor the Tories cut immigration. Immigration is not the cause of our problems **, it’s the only thing that’s making our economy look as though it has a future.

** Do you seriously think if the population had risen through more British babies instead of immigrants, those past governments would have built the 250,000 houses a year we need, increased spending on the NHS and schools to shorten those queues, and raised those wages?

Sunday, 26 March 2017

Sunday, March 26, 2017 Posted by Hari 1 comment Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Almost four decades of widening inequality caused Brexit. Who seriously thinks we’d have voted Brexit if low-end wages had risen in line with growing national wealth? If low income workers had been saving, rather than borrowing or going without? Instead, since 1979, the Tories increased inequality. Worse, Labour failed to reverse it. In fact, it crept up further. Immigration and the EU is getting the blame for that poverty. But neither caused it.

Source: Institute for Fiscal Studies http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/4637
NOTE: The “Gini coefficient” is an internationally used measure of inequality, where zero corresponds with perfect equality (where everyone has the same income) and 1 corresponds with perfect inequality (where one person has all the income, and everyone else has zero income).

Inequality so what? It means we’ve become a nation of borrowers. Since the 1980s the bottom 50% have actually had to borrow money to cover their living costs. As the graph shows, the poorer you are, the more you had to borrow. And before you shout “If you can’t afford it, don’t buy it!” where do you think that huge chunk of the nation’s high street spending is going to come from, that’s paying your wages?! The "Savings Ratio" in the graph shows what percentage of income different groups (the poorest to the richest) save. A negative Savings Ratio means they are borrowing. 





SOURCE: Resolution Foundation report "Gaining from growth: The final report of the Commission on Living Standards"

So, anyone hoping that Brexit voters will change their mind before the EU plug is pulled must therefore pray that inequality gets better. But Chancellor Philip Hammond’s budget is about to make it worse.

Here’s a graph of how incomes changed in the first four years of the “cataclysmically awful” bank bust (2007/8 to 2011/12), overlaid with how incomes will change thanks to Hammond’s budget (2016/17 to 2021/22).

SOURCE: Resolution Foundation report: “Are we nearly there yet? Spring Budget 2017 and the 15 year squeeze on family and public finances”

The lines show household net income growth (i.e. after including tax and benefits, and housing costs) for all working-age households. The poorest are on the left, the richest on the right. The bank-bust brown line shows everyone’s growth was negative, but the poorest suffered least and the super-rich most. Hammond’s blue line shows the poorest will suffer more than anyone has since 2007/8, while incomes will actually grow for the top 50%, the richer the better.

The graph comes from a report by the Resolution Foundation, who said: “the final four years of the current parliament look like being worse for poorer households than the financial crisis period itself.”

And before you accuse the Resolution Foundation of being too lefty, its boss is David Willetts, the Tory peer and former cabinet minister.

Someone needs to tell Hammond that a recovery needs people to spend money. But Hammond’s plan is to give more money to people who will save it, and less to people who would spend it. It’s not going to work. Duh!


What of UK average earnings as a whole? Overall, has the UK got a pay rise yet, since the bank bust? Paul Johnson is the boss of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. The IFS is one of the few research bodies that politicians don’t argue with, such is the robustness of their work. He said: “On current forecasts average earnings will be no higher in 2022 than they were in 2007. Fifteen years without a pay rise. I’m rather lost for superlatives. This is completely unprecedented.”


Unprecedented. The never-ending stagnation has forced commentators to dive deeper and deeper into their tattered history books as every year passes. Yup, this has been the worst recovery for wages since... Napoleonic times!



SOURCE: Resolution Foundation report: “Are we nearly there yet? Spring Budget 2017 and the 15 year squeeze on family and public finances”

The Resolution Foundation report confirms it: “we are on course for average pay across the decade to 2020 to be lower than the average for the decade before. That would represent the worst decade for real earnings growth in 210 years.”

“But Brexit is not simply about inequality and wages. Get real! Plenty of Brexiters just don’t like immigration and the EU.” Sure, but there aren’t nearly enough of them to win a referendum on their own.

Both Theresa May and Philip Hammond voted Remain. Now they are the PM and Chancellor of Brexit Britain. What are they doing to prove their Brexit credentials? By deepening inequality, they ensure the fervour for Brexit never goes away. I guess that’s kind of pro-Brexit.

Sunday, 26 June 2016

Sunday, June 26, 2016 Posted by Jake 6 comments Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Those still puzzling why Britons voted to leave the European Union (EU) in June 2016 should look to what's wrong in Britain and not to Europe. 

Naturally there will be many different individual reasons, but the dog whistles blown by both BREXIT (xenophobia) and BREMAIN (punishment) were not the decisive cause of the result.

Britons voted to protest that even if the European Project made Britain richer, if the riches the went to the few and they didn't get a share, then they didn't want to stay anymore. A protest that "the few" were surprisingly oblivious to.

Britons voted for BREXIT because of chronic Inequality and Inequity in Britain, not because of immigration. Data from the Electoral Commission shows that out of 382 regions, 263 had a majority for BREXIT. London, which has by far the highest proportion of immigrants, voted strongly for BREMAIN. 

For evidence, look to the data:

a) Office for National Statistics migration data shows the areas that voted for BREXIT in England have lower levels of immigration than those that voted for BREMAIN. London, which came out strongly to BREMAIN has the greatest percentage of non-British population:


b) On the other hand, the areas that voted from BREXIT are, apart from Northern Ireland, significantly poorer than those that voted for BREMAIN

c) Other ONS data shows the extraordinary degree London has taken the lion's share of the UK's economic success.



d) A report by Inequality Briefing showed for Northern Europe London is the richest region, but 9 out of the 10 poorest regions were also in the UK.


Jeremy Corbyn has to be admired for his insouciant "rope a dope" strategy to deal with Labour MPs calling for his resignation. MPs whose slithering up the greasy pole has resulted in it slipping their minds who they are supposed to be representing.


Inspite of all his opponents' trash talking Corbyn should be confident the crowds of ordinary party members are behind him. 
Perhaps Corbyn doesn't really want to be, or is not suited to be, Prime Minister. But for Labour to avoid returning to "Tory-Lite" mode, he needs to hold fast. Eventually it will dawn on an ambitious and capable Labour politician the path to Number 10 is to the left.

Corbynistas should take heart:
a) 24 hours after two Labour MPs tabled a vote of no confidence, a petition on 38 Degrees had more than 140,000 members of the public voting their Confidence in the man:


b) The EU referendum turnout was higher than any General Election since 1992. This was because a clear alternative was offered: In or Out. Something that hasn't happened since 1997 from when the electorate has been offered Tory-Lite (New Labour) or Tory-Tory (Tories).

Corbyn needs to offer a clear alternative, then the usual non-voters will come. 



Farage, Gove and Johnson may actually believe their "Once more unto the BREXIT" rhetoric caused Britons to head for the Exit. The real impetus came from decades of chronic inequality regardless of Labour or Tory governments:



Farage, Gove and Johnson may believe themselves cast in the Churchillian mould. But going in the same direction doesn't mean being led. The idea the economically disadvantaged were led by rightwing Tory luminaries Gove and Johnson is risible. BREXITEERs were punishing the political class, especially rightwing Tory luminaries.

Just because Britain voted to BREXIT didn't mean they believed what the BREXIT camp told them. Remember, a chap being followed closely by a bull is more likely to be being chased by it than to be leading it.

 

Thursday, 3 December 2015


SOURCE GUARDIAN: Osborne reliant on rising immigration levels to achieve budget surplus
During last week’s autumn statement, Osborne boasted: “The OBR’s (Office for Budget Responsibility)... forecast today is that the economy will grow robustly every year, living standards will rise every year, and more than a million extra jobs will be created over the next five years.” The chancellor made no reference to immigration in his statement. But analysis of figures from the OBR, the government’s independent forecasting body, shows that Britain’s finances would not be forecast to hit a budget surplus by 2019-20 without recent upward revisions to net migration numbers. As a result of the extra jobs and tax incomes, and changes to the composition of the UK’s working-age population, generated by the influx, the OBR has revised up the level of potential economic output for the UK by 0.9%. Under the OBR’s calculations, if projected net migration had remained unchanged at 105,000 a year, the boost to output would have been negligible. Without the additional output generated by those changed migration forecasts, the projected budget surplus would drop to zero and the only feasible way to achieve one by 2020 would have been through additional spending cuts or tax rises. Furthermore, based on OBR data and the evidence available, it is highly likely that the government’s intention of reducing net migration to the “tens of thousands” is directly at odds with its fiscal target. The OBR’s latest fiscal sustainability report, published in June, stated that net inward migration in line with the Office for National Statistics (ONS) high migration scenario of 225,000 a year would reduce the primary budget deficit by 0.5% of GDP and net debt by 17% of GDP by 2064-65, relative to the OBR’s central projection. In the low migration scenario (105,000 a year), the primary budget deficit would increase by 0.5% of GDP and net debt by 20% of GDP by 2064-65. The OBR’s outlook also shows the 1.1m increase in employment cited by Osborne is mostly because of upward revisions to net migration, which is predominantly concentrated among people of working age: this boosts the employment rate, GDP, potential output and tax receipts. Figures released last week by the ONS show that annualised net migration to Britain hit a new high of 336,000 in June, indicating that further revisions to the OBR’s projections may be in store.

SOURCE FINANCIAL TIMES: Autumn Statement - Osborne accused of resorting to stealth taxes on big businesses, wealthy property owners and council taxpayers
The decision to raise £11.6bn from an apprenticeship levy on businesses came under immediate fire from some tax professionals, who suggested it was at odds with the government’s “triple lock” ban on increasing any of the three main taxes. The levy requires employers to pay an additional 0.5 per cent on their employment costs to fund apprenticeships, which makes it very similar to a rise in employers’ national insurance contributions. Other big increases related to council tax, fuel duty, stamp duty, capital gains tax, corporation tax and pensions tax relief. Council taxpayers will pay an extra £6.2bn by 2021 after the chancellor announced that some local authorities would be allowed to raise council tax faster than previously assumed to meet some of the costs of social care and policing. One of the biggest increases was £3.8bn of higher stamp duty on buy-to-let property and second homes. Another £1.2bn will be raised from property owners by bringing forward payments of capital gains tax on residential property to within 30 days of completion.

Tuesday, 27 May 2014

 

Wednesday, 5 March 2014

Wednesday, March 05, 2014 Posted by Jake No comments Labels: , , , , , , ,
There is nothing like a government to prove the old adage of "lies, damn lies, and statistics". 

In March 2014 a BBC Newsnight programme reported that the Tories were holding back a government report that would expose as untrue a key statistic being used to rouse a rabble of votes with tough talk on immigration. The report is said to show Tory claims that "for every additional 100 immigrants… 23 British workers would not be employed" were a gross exaggeration.



Get Adobe Flash player

The Tories were criticised in July 2013 by the Office of National Statistics for misusing statistics to back a claim that the benefits cap was pushing people back into work. In February 2013 Andrew Dilnot, chairman of the UK Statistics Authority, criticised the government for being economical with the truth about the UK economy's debt and deficit figures.

The Advertising Standards Authority has long since washed its hands in relation to political fibbing. They regard Political Advertising as beyond their control:


"For reasons of freedom of speech, we do not have remit over non-broadcast ads where the purpose of the ad is to persuade voters in a local, national or international electoral referendum. Complaints about political advertising should be made directly to the party responsible for that advertising."


The key to statistics is not so much what they say, but who is saying it. The Office for National Statistics - still not privatised at the time of writing this post - provided an interesting statistic in its report on "Measuring National Well-Being - Governance 2014". The report shows that over the last 10 years fewer than 1 in 3 of us actually believe what the government tells us.


Saturday, 9 November 2013

Saturday, November 09, 2013 Posted by Jake No comments Labels: , , ,

In November 2013 the Home Office launched a GREAT Club. Yes, the capitals in GREAT and C are appropriate - the name of the club is "GREAT Club", as you will see from the Home Office press release below. Clearly the Home Office has access to some really great minds to think up a great name like that. Or have they mispelled GREET, as in greeting visitors to the UK? Or perhaps GREED, as in greedy (see hypothesis below)?.

Anyway, the birth of the GREAT Club was proclaimed in a Home Office press release is:


"the launch of the GREAT Club, an invitation only service providing top business executives with bespoke support from UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI). The Club will start in the New Year as a 12 month pilot aimed at around 100 global business leaders who use the visa service and have strong links to the UK. They will be provided with an account manager to ensure their journey through the visa and immigration service is swift and smooth. The account manager will also be able to arrange visa services tailored to each individual’s needs at no extra cost during the pilot."

Now I suppose the immigration process can be frustrating. But you can be pretty sure that the 100 "top business executives" invited to join the GREAT Club will be well served by their own Personal Assistants, and their Personal Assistants' Personal Assistants (when you get to be PA to a truly top executive you don't have to make your own coffee) to lap up all the tedium and frustration of the visa application process. The Home Secretary won't be finding prospective members to invite into her exclusive GREAT Club sitting on their suitcases in Heathrow.

The reason top business executives shift their businesses to the UK has little to do with how easily they themselves can pass through immigration. It is not to avoid the inconvenience of getting a stamp in their own passports that they hesitate from relocating. However, there are other things they may be more keen on avoiding that may lure them to our shores.

And here we are persuaded to show some sympathy for tax accountants. This is not without precedent - Ripped-off Britons has already been nice to estate agents and to bankers. Now we consider the plight of the tax accountant.

The poor things are getting beaten up by MPs for helping their clients through dodgy-but-legal loopholes. And then they are getting beaten up and severly fined by a High Court Judge for not helping their clients through dodgy-but-legal-at-the-time loopholes.

First, here's the sort of beating they get from MPs from a session of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of the UK Parliament looking into tax avoidance schemes. In this session MPs questioned Aidan James, a director of a tax consultancy advising those who want to avoid tax:


Q103 Ian Swales: How many of the schemes you have marketed are now illegal?

Aiden James: Most of them.

Ian Swales: Most of them?

Aiden James: All of them, I suspect.

Q104 Ian Swales: All the schemes you have marketed are now illegal, so you are now looking for the next loophole-is that a fair description of your business?

Aiden James: That is how it works, yes.

Tuesday, 13 August 2013

Tuesday, August 13, 2013 Posted by Hari No comments Labels: , , , ,

Friday, 5 July 2013

Friday, July 05, 2013 Posted by Hari No comments Labels: , , , , ,
Fee and KJ do the sums, even if the government can't...

Tuesday, 21 May 2013

Tuesday, May 21, 2013 Posted by Hari 2 comments Labels: , , , , , ,
Cameron and Welfare Secretary Iain Duncan-Smith decide to check their facts...

Wednesday, 16 February 2011

Wednesday, February 16, 2011 Posted by Hari No comments Labels: , ,
Chris, Fee and KJ on how fast the despots fleeing their home countries in the Middle East could settle in the UK

Wednesday, 22 September 2010

Wednesday, September 22, 2010 Posted by Hari 1 comment Labels:
KJ explains why immigrants are a vital part of British society

Share This

Follow Us

  • Subscribe via Email

Search Us