Could or should the city be sacrificed for good brexit deal??
Discussion
Re the First page and Lord Turner comments.
How does a bank make the profits and pay the salaries and tax? Well they provide a service for other businesses, and so the point is perhaps some of the talented graduates could apply themselves in other areas that would mean the creation of a new revenue stream and also naturally increase the financial services income/profit?
In the simplest terms Banks can't exist on their own can they? They need other productive businesses to offer their services to? How are banks high profits not just profits that would otherwise remain in the source business, do banks simply overcharge for their services? If the bank was run as not for profit, then the business owners and, if altruistic the business staff, would benefit wouldn't they?
To be such a high percentage of the annual tax take our banking services must be generating a lot of income from regular businesses globally not just the uk, so the question is as a country are we over exposed to the banking sector and would we be better served redressing the balance slightly with creative businesses?
How does a bank make the profits and pay the salaries and tax? Well they provide a service for other businesses, and so the point is perhaps some of the talented graduates could apply themselves in other areas that would mean the creation of a new revenue stream and also naturally increase the financial services income/profit?
In the simplest terms Banks can't exist on their own can they? They need other productive businesses to offer their services to? How are banks high profits not just profits that would otherwise remain in the source business, do banks simply overcharge for their services? If the bank was run as not for profit, then the business owners and, if altruistic the business staff, would benefit wouldn't they?
To be such a high percentage of the annual tax take our banking services must be generating a lot of income from regular businesses globally not just the uk, so the question is as a country are we over exposed to the banking sector and would we be better served redressing the balance slightly with creative businesses?
Scootersp said:
How are banks high profits not just profits that would otherwise remain in the source business, do banks simply overcharge for their services? If the bank was run as not for profit, then the business owners and, if altruistic the business staff, would benefit wouldn't they?
Profit is not the difference between what customers pay and what they ought to pay. In a reasonable approximation of a competitive free market it's the value they add in their process.
I'm sure banks could arrange to have lower profits by serving caviar in the staff canteen and issuing plenty of company Rolls Royces though.
Pieman68 said:
Speaking as someone who comes from a staunchly working class family and lives in a part of the world where a brick with a red rosette would get voted in - quite simply the answer is no, we need to keep the financial centres in London strong
Get rid of the bankers and employ 20000 fishermen - who would all be on minimum wage and pay very little tax and possibly get in work benefits. So we are not only reducing the number of net contributors but adding additional net recipients, thus giving not only a reduced tax take but an increased tax spend. Genius economics there
Apart from a number of specialised fields, I don't think the opportunity is there to rebuild manufacturing and bring it back in house. Unless the cost of living plummets and we can survive on wages similar to those paid in the far east etc. If that doesn't happen then the only way it would be viable would be low wages with wages topped up to living levels using in work benefits
We have to stop harking back to a bygone age and accept that we are now a predominantly service based economy
Country's like Germany do very well with a manufacturing industry base.So stuff the rest and look after the service industry in a country of 60 million people.It is not just about economics to run a country the social aspect is also part of it.Why do you think so many people voted Brexit because they are so happy with the current status?Get rid of the bankers and employ 20000 fishermen - who would all be on minimum wage and pay very little tax and possibly get in work benefits. So we are not only reducing the number of net contributors but adding additional net recipients, thus giving not only a reduced tax take but an increased tax spend. Genius economics there
Apart from a number of specialised fields, I don't think the opportunity is there to rebuild manufacturing and bring it back in house. Unless the cost of living plummets and we can survive on wages similar to those paid in the far east etc. If that doesn't happen then the only way it would be viable would be low wages with wages topped up to living levels using in work benefits
We have to stop harking back to a bygone age and accept that we are now a predominantly service based economy
pim said:
Country's like Germany do very well with a manufacturing industry base.So stuff the rest and look after the service industry in a country of 60 million people.It is not just about economics to run a country the social aspect is also part of it.Why do you think so many people voted Brexit because they are so happy with the current status?
All countries in EU do very badly that's why we voted to leave. Now you are saying Germany is doing very well? Back to rather silly question, and even sillier replies.
'Stuffing' city will do, pardon the technical term, f
k all to reignite the industry. You do what you are good at. Things where you have comparative advantage. Service industry is (was?) doing very well. Some sectors of industry too. I think that many people who voted Brexit because they are NOT happy with the current status, will not be happy with whatever outcome this whole, imo, fiasco leads to. What 'social aspect' do you think will substantially change as a result of Brexit?
jjlynn27 said:
'Stuffing' city will do, pardon the technical terem, fk all to reignite the industry. You do what you are good at. Things where you have comparative advantage.
Quite.k all to reignite the industry. You do what you are good at. Things where you have comparative advantage. For the "stuff the City, replace it with a hard industry" desire to work from a budget point of view, there has to be an obvious impediment to the hard industry revving up, which Govt can remove. If there isn't - well what's stopping you? And if the hard industry requires money thrown at it to survive, then the Budget blows up and there is little sense in supporting unproductive sectors.
Like it or not, those are the choices. You want free money to eg. keep mining very expensive coal that no-one will buy, then go ahead and vote in Corbyn. But expect taxes to hike up to punitive levels, and all forms of mobile assets including companies to shift out of the uk. Imposing maximum damage on the poor, unemployed, and domestic industries, all of whom are natural Brexiters. We wouldn't want them to regret their decision. Hence May's comment "We are all Brexiters now" cos otherwise the outlook is bloody bleak.
stongle said:
Tax incentives for fintech, creative industries, R&D, high end engineering all would be welcome; but at the base end we have to slash our welfare bill (if we offer reduced taxes).
Yup. To add some concrete numbers, here is the UK public spending breakdown for 2016 from http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/breakdown_2016UK...Public Pensions £153 billion
National Health Care + £138 billion
State Education + £89 billion
Defense + £45 billion
Social Security + £110 billion
State Protection + £29 billion
Transport + £27 billion
General Government + £14 billion
Other Public Services + £106 billion
Public Sector Interest + £47 billion
Total Spending £760 billion
Public pensions, Social security, and NHS are £401 billion. Just over half of all govt spending. What do you cut? Answers on a postit please. FWIW as I have conscientiously funded my pension for nearly 25 years so far, and have additional tax-exempt investments, I fully expect and am prepared to fund my own retirement in the expectation that universal pension rights will be removed. It's the most politically obvious move, in my view.
Edited by Whoozit on Sunday 17th July 07:30
Whoozit said:
stongle said:
Tax incentives for fintech, creative industries, R&D, high end engineering all would be welcome; but at the base end we have to slash our welfare bill (if we offer reduced taxes).
Yup. To add some concrete numbers, here is the UK public spending breakdown for 2016 from http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/breakdown_2016UK...Public Pensions £153 billion
National Health Care + £138 billion
State Education + £89 billion
Defense + £45 billion
Social Security + £110 billion
State Protection + £29 billion
Transport + £27 billion
General Government + £14 billion
Other Public Services + £106 billion
Public Sector Interest + £47 billion
Total Spending £760 billion
Public pensions, Social security, and NHS are £401 billion. Just over half of all govt spending. What do you cut? Answers on a postit please. FWIW as I have conscientiously funded my pension for nearly 25 years so far, and have additional tax-exempt investments, I fully expect and am prepared to fund my own retirement in the expectation that universal pension rights will be removed. It's the most politically obvious move, in my view.
Edited by Whoozit on Sunday 17th July 07:30
powerstroke said:
intersting point , but why pensions and not health care ??
Universal healthcare is a founding principle of the NHS, and so far has been untouchable by any political party. Plus putting in place the infrastructure to check entitlement for every single treatment or GP visit, could cause the NHS to be buried under paperwork. Whereas pensions are easily tested ie to receive benefits, please certify your current private pension assets annually. Costs for doing so passed on to the claimant/pension providers. And Govt finds an easy, politically positive fat-cat target to make the top 1% take more pain. Actually, thinking on this some more, there is an easy symmetry here. Given than OTTOMH one third of all working age people receive some form of benefits, make one third of pension claimants ineligible...seems "fair", doesn't it?
Edited by Whoozit on Sunday 17th July 08:13
Whoozit said:
powerstroke said:
intersting point , but why pensions and not health care ??
Universal healthcare is a founding principle of the NHS, and so far has been untouchable by any political party. Plus putting in place the infrastructure to check entitlement for every single treatment or GP visit, could cause the NHS to be buried under paperwork. Whereas pensions are easily tested ie to receive benefits, please certify your current private pension assets annually. Costs for doing so passed on to the claimant/pension providers. I would think private health care would be safer and a much more transparent system to control .......
Edited by powerstroke on Sunday 17th July 08:22
I've had to move to the PC to answer this one, too many topics to cut and paste on an ipad... 
Private pensions - single person involved, easy target, and PROVEN, hard to hide wealth.
powerstroke said:
at the moment we pay national insurance some of which pays out as a basic pension
National Insurance is just another form of income tax. Not hypothecated to our individual future care or entitlements, sadly. powerstroke said:
would the goverrment or business administer our pensions how safe would it be from tax grabs and dodgy corporations
In the scenario I painted, there would be no change to the private pension system. So just as susceptible to Govt interference/dodgy companies as now. Especially after the introductions of stakeholder pensions. powerstroke said:
I would think private health care would be safer and a much more transparent system to control .......
Safer for whom? It'll be riddled with inefficiencies and heartrending stories in the Daily Mail. Here's one scenario - what do you do for children from well off parents? Do they get healthcare to age 18? What happens if they are chronically ill at that point? Or severely disabled and living in public sector accommodation? If you decide nope, it's all on the parents from (before) birth - then parents have a huge incentive to hide income, or cut back their healthcare spending. Expect immediate outbreaks of MMR, or polio, which individual parents have decided aren;t worth the money. Private pensions - single person involved, easy target, and PROVEN, hard to hide wealth.
Can we not have both? I don't see why we have to give away the financial sector to gain anything, after all what would we gain?
It would be great if we could balance out the economy and actually create a northern power house after all it was once thus.
I might be wrong but IIRC we really pushed and offered incentives to get some of the car plants built in the NE and they are now some of the best performing in the world, perhaps what is needed is a strategic industrial plan for the north with some government funding/incentives, which we may be free to do outside of the EU.
Just my 2p I'm sure it's unrealistic but heh ho.
It would be great if we could balance out the economy and actually create a northern power house after all it was once thus.
I might be wrong but IIRC we really pushed and offered incentives to get some of the car plants built in the NE and they are now some of the best performing in the world, perhaps what is needed is a strategic industrial plan for the north with some government funding/incentives, which we may be free to do outside of the EU.
Just my 2p I'm sure it's unrealistic but heh ho.
Wills2 said:
Can we not have both? I don't see why we have to give away the financial sector to gain anything, after all what would we gain?
It would be great if we could balance out the economy and actually create a northern power house after all it was once thus.
Why do you think it's not anymore? It would be great if we could balance out the economy and actually create a northern power house after all it was once thus.
///ajd said:
Yes ... then you realise it's the guardian , realise it will be left leaning propaganda , skim the article look and just see branson and virgin lost one 3rd of its value shrug and smile .... thanks anyway .
fblm said:
TonyToniTone said:
I thought my point was perfectly clear - those figures aren't for the city.
They are for financial services which we all know. Was that really your point?The figures aren't for the city as people were stating so said people obviously don't 'all know'.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff