The Burnham Years - Can the new(ish) broom sweep clean?

[badgerx16]

3 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

You are clearly way out of your depth here.

If I were you I'd go away, do some actual research, and come back with a better formed argument so we can debate this properly.

You're embarrassing yourself.

But, but, Soshul Mejia says.....

[Osvaldorama]

1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

Do you include the threat from the UAE to withdraw investment if Man City are punished for their multiple wrongdoings ?

Are you really trying to equate punishing fraud with a punishingly high tax regime?

[Farmer Saint]

1 minute ago, Osvaldorama said:

LOL. Man who thinks billionaires “don’t pay any taxes” trying to pretend he has won a debate. 
 

Not a serious person at all. 

You carry on buddy - everybody is sat back, reading your posts, grimacing.

[whelk]

14 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

The issue is the example he gave had people who's businesses were overseas, so it could only be income that they were taxed on.

I’m pretty sure Ineos are soon to close the Grangemouth plant and relocate it to Monaco. Subject to planning permission 

[Osvaldorama]

2 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

You carry on buddy - everybody is sat back, reading your posts, grimacing.

Sure, pal. 
 

Tell me - if £100bns in capital and billions in tax revenues are upping sticks, how will the goverment continue to fund their relentless expansion of the welfare state? 
 

You obviously don’t see it as an issue at all, so how do you intend to fill the void?

 

[Farmer Saint]

4 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

Sure, pal. 
 

Tell me - if £100bns in capital and billions in tax revenues are upping sticks, how will the goverment continue to fund their relentless expansion of the welfare state? 
 

You obviously don’t see it as an issue at all, so how do you intend to fill the void?

 

Again, where is the billions in tax revenue? I've asked but you've given nothing apart from something about non-doms (and that's for non-dom tax which was introduced by Labour) - and not all of them are billionaires (very few looking at the average tax bill).

For this to be a loss, you have to compare pre-non-dom tax to what is lost when they leave, so nothing to nothing.

Edited 20 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[badgerx16]

9 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

Are you really trying to equate punishing fraud with a punishingly high tax regime?

No, just pointing out how matters ocurring in this country are potentially impacting negatively a large foreign investment.

Whether it be the Man City situation, or some other political decision, should this country be effectively blackmailed by foreigners ?

[Osvaldorama]

5 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Again, where is the billions in tax revenue? I've asked but you've given nothing apart from something about non-doms (and that's for non-dom tax which was introduced by Labour) - and not all of them are billionaires (very few looking at the average tax bill).

For this to be a loss, you have to compare pre-non-dom tax to what is lost when they leave, so nothing to nothing.

Estimated losses:

£1.5-2.5billion per year in direct losses. Low estimate. 
£1-2bn in CGT

SDLT losses: £400-500mil

VAT: £300-600mil
 

Just from these departures, not even factoring in the exponential curve of wealthy people leaving as the country declines  

 

I ask again, how, in your fantasy land where wealth doesn’t matter, do you intend to fill this void? 

 

[Farmer Saint]

Just now, Osvaldorama said:

Estimated losses:

£1.5-2.5billion per year in direct losses. Low estimate. 
£1-2bn in CGT

SDLT losses: £400-500mil

VAT: £300-600mil
 

Just from these departures, not even factoring in the exponential curve of wealthy people leaving as the country declines  

 

I ask again, how, in your fantasy land where wealth doesn’t matter, do you intend to fill this void? 

 

What were those tax receipts prior to the non-dom tax rules though?

[tdmickey3]

8 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Again, where is the billions in tax revenue? I've asked but you've given nothing apart from something about non-doms (and that's for non-dom tax which was introduced by Labour) - and not all of them are billionaires (very few looking at the average tax bill).

For this to be a loss, you have to compare pre-non-dom tax to what is lost when they leave, so nothing to nothing.

Fair play for trying, but its difficult to explain things to a rock

[Osvaldorama]

4 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

What were those tax receipts prior to the non-dom tax rules though?

Stop moving the goalposts and answer. 
 

£2.5-£4.5billion annually is now being lost, because of the changes.

Historical churn has risen from 4% on average, to 12-16% this year  

How does the void get filled? 

Edited 19 hours ago by Osvaldorama

[Osvaldorama]

4 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

Fair play for trying, but its difficult to explain things to a rock

He’s not going to shag you mate 

[tdmickey3]

16 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

He’s not going to shag you mate 

I think someone has shagged your head

[Farmer Saint]

26 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

Stop moving the goalposts and answer. 
 

£2.5-£4.5billion annually is now being lost, because of the changes.

Historical churn has risen from 4% on average, to 12-16% this year  

How does the void get filled? 

Hang on, so you're saying we're missing tax revenue from taxation imposed by the Labour government, because of the same taxation imposed by the Labour government.

That is awesome, well done you 😂

Perhaps we could impose a wealth tax to fill the gap? Or increase the higher rate of tax back to 50%? Or re-join the EU? Or charge those that leave a "leaving tax" of 20% of their wealth?

Your argument was originally about billionaires, and now it's about non-doms, so what are you actually arguing here? Why are you constantly changing your argument?

Edited 19 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Holmes_and_Watson]

5 hours ago, whelk said:

ChatGPT said I was the funniest poster a while back. And no I wasn’t being a narcissist, Hypo or someone posted it.

Should ask it to assess your runny brain and how far off a three digit IQ you are.

The same day AI was revealed to be a threat to humanity, mind. 🙂

[Osvaldorama]

3 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

Hang on, so you're saying we're missing tax revenue from taxation imposed by the Labour government, because of the same taxation imposed by the Labour government.

That is awesome, well done you 😂

Perhaps we could impose a wealth tax to fill the gap? Or increase the higher rate of tax back to 50%? Or re-join the EU? Or charge those that leave a "leaving tax" of 20% of their wealth?

Your argument was originally about billionaires, and now it's about non-doms, so what are you actually arguing here? Why are you constantly changing your argument?

No, you’ve said that. I’ve said that Britain is now unattractive to wealthy people, regardless of their status. My argument is that taxes are too high. Plain and simple. 
 

And your suggestions are really bad.  “More taxes” clearly isn’t the answer. We are at the point where more tax rises will actually reduce overall tax revenue for the government because people are leaving at a faster and faster rate. 

Re-joining the EU (a sinking ship) won’t help either. Why do people still have a hard-on for that nonsense?

 

[badgerx16]

2 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

Re-joining the EU (a sinking ship) won’t help either. Why do people still have a hard-on for that nonsense?

 

What have been the positive benefits of leaving ?

[Wade Garrett]

Just spent a bit of time reading all the arguments and I've come to the following conclusions:

Burnham is a cunt, runs with the foxes and hunts with the hounds.  

We'll all be poorer under Labour, with no green shoots to look forward to.

Hope this doesn't offend anyone.

[Farmer Saint]

57 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

No, you’ve said that. I’ve said that Britain is now unattractive to wealthy people, regardless of their status. My argument is that taxes are too high. Plain and simple. 
 

And your suggestions are really bad.  “More taxes” clearly isn’t the answer. We are at the point where more tax rises will actually reduce overall tax revenue for the government because people are leaving at a faster and faster rate. 

Re-joining the EU (a sinking ship) won’t help either. Why do people still have a hard-on for that nonsense?

 

Well, of course you'd say that, because it goes against the data. We are far worse off being out of the EU. That's been called out by all independent economic think tanks. That's as close to fact as you'll ever find, and no amount of head in sand denials makes that untrue.

[Farmer Saint]

51 minutes ago, Wade Garrett said:

Just spent a bit of time reading all the arguments and I've come to the following conclusions:

Burnham is a cunt, runs with the foxes and hunts with the hounds.  

We'll all be poorer under Labour, with no green shoots to look forward to.

Hope this doesn't offend anyone.

We're all poorer because of Farage and the Tories anyway. Not sure what the alternative is?

[egg]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

What have been the positive benefits of leaving ?

Blue passport? Queueing at airports? Reduced GDP? 

[Farmer Saint]

15 minutes ago, egg said:

Blue passport? Queueing at airports? Reduced GDP? 

Straight bananas - fucking woke.

[Gloucester Saint]

2 hours ago, Wade Garrett said:

Just spent a bit of time reading all the arguments and I've come to the following conclusions:

Burnham is a cunt, runs with the foxes and hunts with the hounds.  

We'll all be poorer under Labour, with no green shoots to look forward to.

Hope this doesn't offend anyone.

Labour aren’t great albeit a bit better under Burnham but Badenoch is offering nothing new, reheated 1980s policies albeit she’s got a bit more about her than I thought. They’ll never turn a corner properly until they find a new way post-Thatcher. It’s like Saints fans comparing every manager to Lawrie. Different eras, different solutions. Unlike Farage and Polanski, she doesn’t make turn the channel straight away which is progress of a sort. 

Farage is simply a fucking grifter who would make the economic issues of the last 10 years look like nothing by comparison. He’s also got zero attention to detail, is as flaky as Harry Redknapp with the same IT skills. Up to his neck in corruption and dodgy overseas funny money which even the skates in the 2000s and early 10s would have turned down for being too dubious. Thankfully tactical voting is flushing him out. 

Hope these views of a Liberal Democrat voter (who isn’t sold on his own party leader) don’t offend. Oh, and Polanski and the Greens who proposed the Zionism is racism vote are just as bad as Farage. Frankly anyone who votes outside of Lib/Lab/Con needs their heads examined. Reform and Green are abysmal and both racist to boot. Any Saints fan who votes for Rupert…get on the train eastbound and turn left out of the station down Goldsmith Avenue (I know you hate him as well). They’re not a Saints fan.

Edited 13 hours ago by Gloucester Saint

[Wade Garrett]

2 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

We're all poorer because of Farage and the Tories anyway. Not sure what the alternative is?

Why because of Farage?  We may be in the shit but we’re still outperforming our friends in the EU.

[Wade Garrett]

28 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Labour aren’t great albeit a bit better under Burnham but Badenoch is offering nothing new, reheated 1980s policies albeit she’s got a bit more about her than I thought. They’ll never turn a corner properly until they find a new way post-Thatcher. It’s like Saints fans comparing every manager to Lawrie. Different eras, different solutions. Unlike Farage and Polanski, she doesn’t make turn the channel straight away which is progress of a sort. 

Farage is simply a fucking grifter who would make the economic issues of the last 10 years look like nothing by comparison. He’s also got zero attention to detail, is as flaky as Harry Redknapp with the same IT skills. Up to his neck in corruption and dodgy overseas funny money which even the skates in the 2000s and early 10s would have turned down for being too dubious. Thankfully tactical voting is flushing him out. 

Hope these views of a Liberal Democrat voter (who isn’t sold on his own party leader) don’t offend. Oh, and Polanski and the Greens who proposed the Zionism is racism vote are just as bad as Farage. Frankly anyone who votes outside of Lib/Lab/Con needs their heads examined. Reform and Green are abysmal and both racist to boot. Any Saints fan who votes for Rupert…get on the train eastbound and turn left out of the station down Goldsmith Avenue (I know you hate him as well). They’re not a Saints fan.

I never commented on any of the other leaders, just Burnham in isolation.

Although, I think Farage is a clumsy politician, Davey changes his mind like the weather and Polanski is an absolute fucking joke.

Badenoch is the only one I can listen to, but there’s a lot of scar tissue there.  That said, she’s possibly the best of a really shitty bunch.

[Farmer Saint]

20 minutes ago, Wade Garrett said:

Why because of Farage?  We may be in the shit but we’re still outperforming our friends in the EU.

Yes, because we dropped so far post Brexit - and have a guess?

[Wade Garrett]

35 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Yes, because we dropped so far post Brexit - and have a guess?

Judging by the European economy, we could have dropped further if we were still in the EU.

[Farmer Saint]

14 minutes ago, Wade Garrett said:

Judging by the European economy, we could have dropped further if we were still in the EU.

But we wouldn't have lost the initial 6-8% or so.

There is no doubt amongst all the independent economic think tanks that we'd be significantly better off if we were still in the EU, to the tune of around £100bn per annum and a drop of 15% in Business Investment.

Edited 11 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[egg]

1 minute ago, Farmer Saint said:

But we wouldn't have lost the initial 6% or so.

There is no doubt amongst all the independent economic think tanks that we'd be significantly better off if we were still in the EU, to the tune of around £100bn per annum and a drop of 15% in Business Investment.

Yep, and Europe are weaker without us. 

The suggestion that the EU is outperforming us I'm guessing, is based just on current growth, which is only a wee bit above ours...but ignores that their post pandemic growth exceeds ours, their debt burden is lower, they have much lower interest rates, their government borrowing is lower, they have frictionless trade, etc, etc. 

Nuts if anything thinks we're doing better. 

[iansums]

18 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

But we wouldn't have lost the initial 6-8% or so.

There is no doubt amongst all the independent economic think tanks that we'd be significantly better off if we were still in the EU, to the tune of around £100bn per annum and a drop of 15% in Business Investment.

What 6-8%?

[Farmer Saint]

2 minutes ago, iansums said:

What 6-8%?

6-8% of our counterfactual GDP as estimated by BOE, IMF, NBER etc.

[aintforever]

37 minutes ago, Wade Garrett said:

Judging by the European economy, we could have dropped further if we were still in the EU.

Or maybe both us and the EU would be better off if it wasn’t for Brexit?

[iansums]

6 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

6-8% of our counterfactual GDP as estimated by BOE, IMF, NBER etc.

This is the 6-8% additional GDP we would have had if we had stayed in EU, correct?

[Farmer Saint]

Just now, iansums said:

This is the 6-8% additional GDP we would have had if we had stayed in EU, correct?

Correct.

[iansums]

Just now, Farmer Saint said:

Correct.

Then it’s been debunked. We actually grew in GDP terms over 1% more than Germany since Brexit, those figures suggest we would have grown over 7-9% more than Germany had we stayed, it’s nonsense. I don’t believe there was ever a BoE report suggesting this. Post Brexit investment did drop which was unsurprising given the uncertainty but has recovered to overtake the EU. To suggest we’d be £100bn per annum better off is also nonsense, so much so, you should put it on the side of a bus. I voted to remain (I had a vote in those days), mainly because I could see protracted uncertainty which would be damaging, but we are over that now. I don’t see much benefit in rejoining. Rant over, time for bed!🛌 

[egg]

21 minutes ago, iansums said:

Then it’s been debunked. We actually grew in GDP terms over 1% more than Germany since Brexit, those figures suggest we would have grown over 7-9% more than Germany had we stayed, it’s nonsense. I don’t believe there was ever a BoE report suggesting this. Post Brexit investment did drop which was unsurprising given the uncertainty but has recovered to overtake the EU. To suggest we’d be £100bn per annum better off is also nonsense, so much so, you should put it on the side of a bus. I voted to remain (I had a vote in those days), mainly because I could see protracted uncertainty which would be damaging, but we are over that now. I don’t see much benefit in rejoining. Rant over, time for bed!🛌 

It was 6-8%

https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/working-paper/economic-impact-brexit

Follow the link in the link to the full paper. Page 34 is your friend if you just want the conclusion. 

[Farmer Saint]

9 hours ago, iansums said:

Then it’s been debunked. We actually grew in GDP terms over 1% more than Germany since Brexit, those figures suggest we would have grown over 7-9% more than Germany had we stayed, it’s nonsense. I don’t believe there was ever a BoE report suggesting this. Post Brexit investment did drop which was unsurprising given the uncertainty but has recovered to overtake the EU. To suggest we’d be £100bn per annum better off is also nonsense, so much so, you should put it on the side of a bus. I voted to remain (I had a vote in those days), mainly because I could see protracted uncertainty which would be damaging, but we are over that now. I don’t see much benefit in rejoining. Rant over, time for bed!🛌 

Sorry, who's debunked it? 

When talking about the economy I trust independent economic think-tanks over some random on a forum. You know you can't just compare us to those in the EU, as Brexit cost both those inside and us, outside, the EU - especially the German's as the biggest economy. There is a contributory loss between the countries.

BOE data:

BBC News - Brexit cost 6% of UK economy, Bank of England company data suggests

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg75npqkq4o

Brexit has been, and was always going to be, a disaster for both us and the EU.

 

[egg]

Just now, Farmer Saint said:

Sorry, who's debunked it? 

When talking about the economy I trust independent economic think-tanks over some random on a forum. You know you can't just compare us to those in the EU, as Brexit cost both those inside and us, outside, the EU - especially the German's as the biggest economy. There is a contributory loss between the countries.

BOE data:

BBC News - Brexit cost 6% of UK economy, Bank of England company data suggests

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg75npqkq4o

Brexit has been, and was always going to be, a disaster for both us and the EU.

 

It hasn't been debunked.

The Stanford paper is excellent, and as up to date as anything I've seen. The authors are all credible. 

One extract:

"Figure 1 shows UK GDP compared to that of other countries since the Brexit referendum. Our analysis focuses on GDP per capita. This helps to account for any differences in population growth trends across countries. It illustrates that UK GDP was growing at a similar rate to other comparable countries in the period prior to the Brexit referendum, regardless of how those other countries are weighted together. 

Since the vote for Brexit in 2016 Q2, UK GDP has grown by less than other comparable countries. That is estimated to be the case across all of our different metrics for weighting other countries together, and it places the UK close to the bottom of the distribution we draw around the unweighted average, at around the 10th percentile.

Depending on which comparator metric is used, UK GDP per capita is estimated to have grown by between 6% and 10% less than other similar countries between the Brexit referendum and the year to 2025 Q1, and it only rose by 4% in absolute terms. The smallest implied impact is from GDP/air distance weighting the comparator countries, which places a heavy weight on large, nearby Northern European countries that experienced relatively slow growth post 2016. In part, this could have been due to Brexit spillovers. 

The largest estimated impacts are from the synthetic control and unweighted estimates, as theseplace more weight on faster growing countries, in particular the US for the synthetic control.

Taking the simple average across our five weighting approaches, UK GDP is estimated to have been 8% lower than other similar countries over the year to 2025 Q1. We use this average as our central estimate of the effect of Brexit from macroeconomic data".

I'd like to see the contra evidence. 

[whelk]

15 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

What have been the positive benefits of leaving ?

Been trying to think objectively and genuinely cannot think of anything. Oh yeah, the now quiet, luxurious A & E departments looking around at a sprinkling of white middle class people smiling.

[Osvaldorama]

Brexit is old news and done and dusted, I cannot understand why people keep harping on about it. But off the top of my head the positives are:

- Sovereignty 

- Saved billions in fees

- Trade freedom 

- Lower VAT and tarriffs

- Regained control of territorial waters

- Removed three crop rule for farmers

- Regained free speech (eg opting out of EU digital services act) 

 

Of course, it’s been undermined at every turn, so it hasn’t been as successful as it could have been. But directionally it was the correct decision.
 

Decentralisation of authority will lead to better outcomes than dictates from unelected socialists in Brussels.  

 

[Farmer Saint]

12 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

Brexit is old news and done and dusted, I cannot understand why people keep harping on about it. But off the top of my head the positives are:

- Sovereignty - What's that mean to you? What have you seen that helps our nation's sovereignty?

- Saved billions in fees - Lost hundreds of billions more in GDP.

- Trade freedom - Yeah, got some cracking trade deals in, and lost put on the better ones the EU have put in place.

- Lower VAT and tariffs - Sorry, what lower VAT rate? And what lower tariffs? Surely that is on a trade deals by trade deals basis?

- Regained control of territorial waters - How's that going?

- Removed three crop rule for farmers - Don't even get me started. EU wasn't great for Farmer's, but far better than it is now.

- Regained free speech (eg opting out of EU digital services act) - The right are always saying that free speech has gone in this country??

 

Of course, it’s been undermined at every turn, so it hasn’t been as successful as it could have been. But directionally it was the correct decision.
 

Decentralisation of authority will lead to better outcomes than dictates from unelected socialists in Brussels.  

 

Not a good attempt. D Minus.

Edited 1 minute ago by Farmer Saint

[whelk]

13 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

Of course, it’s been undermined at every turn, so it hasn’t been as successful as it could have been

Just like when the cult followers have to come to terms that their leader’s prediction for the end of world didn’t happen. Hard psychologically to admit you were duped. Cognitive dissonance. Failed prediction, outsiders mock, we need each other more, become more committed……