The economic consequences of Brexit (Vol 2)
Discussion
cookie118 said:
3) Unless I'm not looking hard enough I've seen now major investments or company moves to the UK because of Brexit yet, but some companies saying Brexit is the reason to move away.
Maybe not described as "because of" brexit in the media.http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/google-to-cr...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/sn...
https://electrek.co/2017/01/13/tesla-former-head-o...
http://news.sky.com/story/deliveroo-serves-up-over...
https://www.ft.com/content/c5a2022c-dcd6-11e6-86ac...
http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-battersea-pow...
http://www.building.co.uk/aecom-lifts-the-lid-on-i...
https://bdaily.co.uk/industrials/18-01-2017/crl-mo...
http://www.constructionenquirer.com/2017/01/17/len...
http://www.cityam.com/256048/deutsche-boerse-boss-...
http://archinect.com/firms/release/149979999/movab...
http://www.standard.co.uk/business/warner-bros-com...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/fa...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-09...
"Despite Brexit"...
Burwood said:
I think he might want to check that factoid . I can see the steam rising of that heap.
I'm sure many would love it to be wrong but it does appear to have some basis in fact.https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-12...
davepoth said:
Greg66 said:
like it or not some employers are starting to make decisions.
Net economic impact of this so far?5,000 workers, let's say they're on £100,000 a year average. They each pay £35,000 in tax and NI, and the company will pay in £12,000 in NI contributions. Let's say a nice even £50,000. That's £250m.
It sounds like a lot of money, and it is. It's also about 0.01% of GDP, which sounds a lot less.
It also doesn't take any account of workers that banks move in to London to take account of what will almost certainly be a more business friendly environment.
(You seem to be assuming some fairly low incomes, and not putting any figure on the CT on the profits those employers might generate for their employers. And then there's their income which ceases to be pushed back into the economy elsewhere...)
CaptainSlow said:
I don't think any pro-Leaver is denying that some jobs may move abroad, it's just that the scale of the damage seems to be far lower than some of the "experts" prophesied and we're still waiting for the "immediate" recession.
To add, many pro-Leavers believed project fear and still voted to Leave, maybe, to some, GDP per capita isn't particularly important.
Somewhere between "insignificant" and "immaterial" then? To add, many pro-Leavers believed project fear and still voted to Leave, maybe, to some, GDP per capita isn't particularly important.
davepoth said:
cookie118 said:
3) Unless I'm not looking hard enough I've seen now major investments or company moves to the UK because of Brexit yet, but some companies saying Brexit is the reason to move away.
Maybe not described as "because of" brexit in the media.http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/google-to-cr...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/sn...
https://electrek.co/2017/01/13/tesla-former-head-o...
http://news.sky.com/story/deliveroo-serves-up-over...
https://www.ft.com/content/c5a2022c-dcd6-11e6-86ac...
http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-battersea-pow...
http://www.building.co.uk/aecom-lifts-the-lid-on-i...
https://bdaily.co.uk/industrials/18-01-2017/crl-mo...
http://www.constructionenquirer.com/2017/01/17/len...
http://www.cityam.com/256048/deutsche-boerse-boss-...
http://archinect.com/firms/release/149979999/movab...
http://www.standard.co.uk/business/warner-bros-com...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/fa...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-09...
"Despite Brexit"...
///ajd said:
ITV just said Goldman Sachs moving 50% = 3000?
Can we really sweep this under the carpet and pretend it doesn't matter?
welcome back ! what would you do to address this should it come to pass ? serious question to all that are posting links to possible negative outcomes as a result of brexit .Can we really sweep this under the carpet and pretend it doesn't matter?
Greg66 said:
Chalk one up for "insignificant"
(You seem to be assuming some fairly low incomes, and not putting any figure on the CT on the profits those employers might generate for their employers. And then there's their income which ceases to be pushed back into the economy elsewhere...)
The profits would still get funneled back here - so corporation tax would most likely get paid here too. I have a sneaking suspicion that while the jobs might move, a lot of the highest net worth individuals might choose to base themselves in the UK while still nominally working abroad. (You seem to be assuming some fairly low incomes, and not putting any figure on the CT on the profits those employers might generate for their employers. And then there's their income which ceases to be pushed back into the economy elsewhere...)
£100k was a bit plucked out of the air admittedly, but it made the sums nice. Double it and it will be near enough £500m, the thresholds don't make much difference at those salary levels.
Greg66 said:
CaptainSlow said:
I don't think any pro-Leaver is denying that some jobs may move abroad, it's just that the scale of the damage seems to be far lower than some of the "experts" prophesied and we're still waiting for the "immediate" recession.
To add, many pro-Leavers believed project fear and still voted to Leave, maybe, to some, GDP per capita isn't particularly important.
Somewhere between "insignificant" and "immaterial" then? To add, many pro-Leavers believed project fear and still voted to Leave, maybe, to some, GDP per capita isn't particularly important.
wc98 said:
welcome back ! what would you do to address this should it come to pass ? serious question to all that are posting links to possible negative outcomes as a result of brexit .
If one thinks it is a big enough problem to warrant addressing, it seems to me the only way to address it is to speak to GS/whoever and ask "what is it going to take to keep these jobs in London?" . Then you weigh up whether the problem warrants the solution. cookie118 said:
I've only skipped through a few of them because of the time-but I was talking about direct quotes from companies. I've not seen 'because brexit' used as the reason for investment by any company yet.
The "Because Brexit" part can't really happen until Brexit has happened - we can't sweeten the pot just yet. Most of these are "despite Brexit" but they really focus on the business friendly environment and critical mass of entrepreneurs and innovators that doesn't really exist anywhere else in Europe - something that our future economy is likely to focus on.cookie118 said:
I've only skipped through a few of them because of the time-but I was talking about direct quotes from companies. I've not seen 'because brexit' used as the reason for investment by any company yet.
Nope, these are all "despite Brexit". I'm looking forward to the coming years where the UK builds up trading relationships with the EU and the rest of the world, brings back decision making to our own elected representatives and reduces pressure on public services...all "despite Brexit"Greg66 said:
wc98 said:
welcome back ! what would you do to address this should it come to pass ? serious question to all that are posting links to possible negative outcomes as a result of brexit .
If one thinks it is a big enough problem to warrant addressing, it seems to me the only way to address it is to speak to GS/whoever and ask "what is it going to take to keep these jobs in London?" . Then you weigh up whether the problem warrants the solution. 
. This is why I didn't waste my money on either chocolates or flowers 
fblm said:
I'll eat my hat if any bank moves to Paris...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/07/societe...
I've said ten times on this thread that nobody moves to France willingly. Germany is bad enough.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/07/societe...
France to big business is what Dr Shipman is to little old ladies, they don't mix too well.
davepoth said:
The profits would still get funneled back here - so corporation tax would most likely get paid here too. I have a sneaking suspicion that while the jobs might move, a lot of the highest net worth individuals might choose to base themselves in the UK while still nominally working abroad.
£100k was a bit plucked out of the air admittedly, but it made the sums nice. Double it and it will be near enough £500m, the thresholds don't make much difference at those salary levels.
I wouldn't be quite so sure about the CT. It may come back here; it may not. It most likely depends on which jurisdiction has the lower CT rate. It's easy for us to say that we will make ourselves competitive by lowering CT, and to do it. But then what's to stop everyone else doing it too?£100k was a bit plucked out of the air admittedly, but it made the sums nice. Double it and it will be near enough £500m, the thresholds don't make much difference at those salary levels.
Something else you mentioned: an influx due to us having a more "business friendly environment". I'm always curious about what this innocuous phrase means. Sounds innocent enough, and a sensible goal.
But what does it mean in our specific circumstances? I doubt HMG knows right now. It could mean lower CT. It could mean scything employee protections: being able to move on employees easily is very attractive. Or removing the right to strike. Or relaxing H&S requirements so massively long shifts become the norm.
Or what about relaxing environmental red tape? Don4l's bugbear is the WEEE directive which imposes a burden of a couple of hundred quid a year. But how about some bigger picture stuff? Relax what a chemicals company can pump into the watercourses. Again, falls under the big umbrella of "more business friendly".
Or (final example) how about relaxing some of the filing requirements that English companies have. Like detailed accounts. Or accounts full stop. Or shareholder identities. Make us more like Jersey, or Gib, or Delaware, or Cayman or the BVI. Tons of companies set up there - relaxed regulation is massively friendly. Not being able to see your proposed business partner's financials is less helpful though.
Personally I think it's a good thing to know what one is getting into. Otherwise it's difficult to make an informed judgement as to whether it is a good or bad thing.
Greg66 said:
I wouldn't be quite so sure about the CT. It may come back here; it may not. It most likely depends on which jurisdiction has the lower CT rate. It's easy for us to say that we will make ourselves competitive by lowering CT, and to do it. But then what's to stop everyone else doing it too?
The EU Commission is trying its best.It's not the idea of cutting red tape, or allowing chemical companies to pollute watercourses. It's much simpler than that.
I have an Italian friend who was thinking about setting up a business, just him doing a bit of importing of stuff from Italy, and he asked me what he needed to do to get started.
I said "Sit there, and say 'I've started a business'."
He was incredulous. Apparently there are all kinds of rules and forms and things that have to be filled and filed at various government offices, even as a sole trader. It took me a long time to convince him that the only thing he needed to do was keep a good record of his income and outgoings, and be sure to file a tax return.
That's what I mean by business friendly.
I have an Italian friend who was thinking about setting up a business, just him doing a bit of importing of stuff from Italy, and he asked me what he needed to do to get started.
I said "Sit there, and say 'I've started a business'."
He was incredulous. Apparently there are all kinds of rules and forms and things that have to be filled and filed at various government offices, even as a sole trader. It took me a long time to convince him that the only thing he needed to do was keep a good record of his income and outgoings, and be sure to file a tax return.
That's what I mean by business friendly.
kurt535 said:
brokers have the relationship with the client so hiring locals to take over accounts doesn't work, especially when the desk has been built up by the team over several years.
deustche worries and bonus cuts are well known this week.
Not reported in the same way as a HSBC moving a small number of jobs. Or when ING moved jobs to London recently (mainstream media).deustche worries and bonus cuts are well known this week.
Anyway, good luck to your mate. They'll hate FFT!
Greg66 said:
davepoth said:
Greg66 said:
like it or not some employers are starting to make decisions.
Net economic impact of this so far?5,000 workers, let's say they're on £100,000 a year average. They each pay £35,000 in tax and NI, and the company will pay in £12,000 in NI contributions. Let's say a nice even £50,000. That's £250m.
It sounds like a lot of money, and it is. It's also about 0.01% of GDP, which sounds a lot less.
It also doesn't take any account of workers that banks move in to London to take account of what will almost certainly be a more business friendly environment.
(You seem to be assuming some fairly low incomes, and not putting any figure on the CT on the profits those employers might generate for their employers. And then there's their income which ceases to be pushed back into the economy elsewhere...)
maybe less is more ???
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff