Shandypants
Well-known member
400 million customs declarations at £32.50 each. That's the estimated annual costs to businesses in this country. Bizarrely it's substantially more than our annual EU contributions.
Do the maths
- Thread starter Shandypants
- Start date
TangerineSeasider
Well-known member
My calculator doesn’t have enough room on the screen to work out that sum .... but I can spell ‘boobies‘ and ‘boobless’ on it, if I turn it upside down.
Last edited:
Shandypants
Well-known member
Circa 13 billion per year that businesses will have to pass onto you and me. Oh joy. Guess that one of the cabinet or Dom Cummings will have shares or part own the IT system for the customs declarations. The govt clearly have taken the oyston model on board. Promenade customs declaration Ltd?
L’étranger
Well-known member
bbbut we’ll get back are sovrenty.
1966_and_all_that
Well-known member
As long as MPs don't start telling the goverment what to do.
tommytwojags
Well-known member
There's a price to pay for the most effective and secure border in the world.
glasshalffull
Well-known member
Yes, global isolation.
tommytwojags
Well-known member
The additional costs will be for complying with the new regime and most of it will be paid in charges to UK shipping agents and freight forwarders. It's money circulating in the UK economy.
bollieboy
Well-known member
So if every company just gave all their staff a massive pay rise the UK economy will be much stronger.
You've not really thought this one out, have you ?
Shandypants
Well-known member
I've not met a brexiteer that has
tommytwojags
Well-known member
Well it's not going to happen, but in answer to your question if every company gave all their staff a massive pay rise, the UK economy would be much stronger, so long as they spend the money. It's basic economics.
Costero Poderoso
Well-known member
that is not even close to basic economics
bollieboy
Well-known member
Oh my god !
tangerinenotorange
Well-known member
I wouldn’t presume to tell TTJ about such things as I understand he writes books on these subjects, but he raises the interesting matter of Universal Basic Income, whereby the government gives everyone unconditional monthly payments direct or via employers. In its purest form, UBI is paid to everyone no matter how rich or poor they are, or whether or not they work.
Proponents argue that UBI could end financial poverty and allow people more choice in what they want to do, would create better working conditions, would reward unpaid activities such as those carried out by the likes of carers and would prepare citizens for a future where artificial intelligence increasingly carries out work. The income could overcome complexities in the current welfare system and cut costs of different means-testing. 170 MPs recently urged Rishi Sunak to consider UBI as an option to help struggling Brits, but the government was not in favour of introducing the policy at this time.
www.express.co.uk
Proponents argue that UBI could end financial poverty and allow people more choice in what they want to do, would create better working conditions, would reward unpaid activities such as those carried out by the likes of carers and would prepare citizens for a future where artificial intelligence increasingly carries out work. The income could overcome complexities in the current welfare system and cut costs of different means-testing. 170 MPs recently urged Rishi Sunak to consider UBI as an option to help struggling Brits, but the government was not in favour of introducing the policy at this time.
Universal Basic Income: Which countries have a Universal Basic Income?
UNIVERSAL basic income is what millions of ordinary people around the world equate with the ideal economy, with potential benefits for combatting poverty. Which countries have a universal basic income?
www.express.co.uk
Wizaard
Well-known member
As seen in Scandinavian countries. Pensioners here in effect get it already with Pension Credit which replaced the Minimum Income Guarantee.I wouldn’t presume to tell TTJ about such things as I understand he writes books on these subjects, but he raises the interesting matter of Universal Basic Income, whereby the government gives everyone unconditional monthly payments direct or via employers. In its purest form, UBI is paid to everyone no matter how rich or poor they are, or whether or not they work.
Proponents argue that UBI could end financial poverty and allow people more choice in what they want to do, would create better working conditions, would reward unpaid activities such as those carried out by the likes of carers and would prepare citizens for a future where artificial intelligence increasingly carries out work. The income could overcome complexities in the current welfare system and cut costs of different means-testing. 170 MPs recently urged Rishi Sunak to consider UBI as an option to help struggling Brits, but the government was not in favour of introducing the policy at this time.
Universal Basic Income: Which countries have a Universal Basic Income?
UNIVERSAL basic income is what millions of ordinary people around the world equate with the ideal economy, with potential benefits for combatting poverty. Which countries have a universal basic income?
kuriousoranj
Well-known member
PETER SPRUCE 1
Well-known member
Oh dear me Tommy ,what a mess you leavers have put your country in (this will take a generation to sort out )
just glad I've retired to Spain 
and don't have to worry about where my next wage might be coming from .
just glad I've retired to Spain and don't have to worry about where my next wage might be coming from .
B_Side_The_C_Side
Well-known member
As someone who's actually imported and exported goods across the world.....Tommy was (more or less) right with his first statement....And the figures mentioned from the HMRC cover every type of shipment/Parcel going to Europe (which would be 1.1m a week) so they are a little skewed because that only covers a small number of companies who are actually exporting and where a £32 deceleration wouldn't effect the price of f##k all
And for those that only got a D in their economics CSE in the 1980's...Tommy's talking Keynesian economics and the macroeconomic theories of increasing demand by giving workers a short term increase in disposable income.......He's right....and some of you lot need to read a book before going all billy big balls about something you know very little about......
And for those that only got a D in their economics CSE in the 1980's...Tommy's talking Keynesian economics and the macroeconomic theories of increasing demand by giving workers a short term increase in disposable income.......He's right....and some of you lot need to read a book before going all billy big balls about something you know very little about......
B
basilrobbie
Guest
It's a basic recipe for hyper-inflation, more like. All that money has to chase increased productivity, otherwise it has the opposite effect that you intend.
bollieboy
Well-known member
I think you need to read up on economics. This just adds non-value added work which decreases productivity, reduces margin and/or increases prices which results in a combination of less investment, overall reduction in consumer demand, increased inflation, etc.As someone who's actually imported and exported goods across the world.....Tommy was (more or less) right with his first statement....And the figures mentioned from the HMRC cover every type of shipment/Parcel going to Europe (which would be 1.1m a week) so they are a little skewed because that only covers a small number of companies who are actually exporting and where a £32 deceleration wouldn't effect the price of f##k all
And for those that only got a D in their economics CSE in the 1980's...Tommy's talking Keynesian economics and the macroeconomic theories of increasing demand by giving workers a short term increase in disposable income.......He's right....and some of you lot need to read a book before going all billy big balls about something you know very little about......
B
basilrobbie
Guest
If you give people pay rises indefinitely for doing nothing, at some point prices will increase too. If you continue to keep printing money that people haven't actually earned in some way, you will eventually reach a point where when you go to the shop to buy bread, you will need a wheelbarrow to carry your cash in. And will be at risk of attack from muggers who want to relieve you of the wheelbarrow.
That is why Rishi's solution was always going to be a time-limited, one-off emergency measure. At some point, we need to start creating wealth again, which means people have to go back to work, the risks of infection go up and measures like mask-wearing (which weren't so important when we were all in lockdown) have to be ramped up to mitigate those risks.
That is why Rishi's solution was always going to be a time-limited, one-off emergency measure. At some point, we need to start creating wealth again, which means people have to go back to work, the risks of infection go up and measures like mask-wearing (which weren't so important when we were all in lockdown) have to be ramped up to mitigate those risks.
B_Side_The_C_Side
Well-known member
Tommy made a comment that was very, very general, so it's open to interpretation.....and I'm not saying Tommy was 100% right...I hope he was trying to promote a Keynesian theory...but not really sure...but he didn't deserve the reply he got (even though he was slightly vague ) and it's like arguing about apples when everyone is talking about oranges.
Now we could bore everyone discussing Keynesian theory encouraging government spending to stimulate demand (as Baz has mentioned) V Friedman's consumption analysis theory....but that would bore all of AVFTT....and me.....so I will just reply on your attempt to Google an answer.
You seem to be basing your comment on manufacturing a "product" but you're not really looking at services....it's not what I mentioned but you seem to disregard the fact that the UK is now a service led country, which does make your reply redundant.
You're addition of this 'non value work' which is mainly used in manufacturing isn't going to increase the production costs because this is a short term pay rise that would either be government backed (see Baz post) or offered by business (with incentives that are backed by Government...which is usually in the form of reduced taxation like Vat) but your reply doesn't even take that into account.
This "Non Value Added Work" will have nothing to do with employees productivity...It's just giving an employee a short term pay rise to stimulate the economy...and getting a pay rise is often seen to increase work rate without adding new processes.....Most likely this will increase production and therefore lowering of costs etc, etc......Margin (which is often fluid due to market forces/seasonality) can be reduced and will still have no effect on cost prices (in the short run)
Also...Investment........are you talking about workers & methods of production?....With more money in circulation, this will increases demand for a wide range of products and services.....so this has a direct effect to increases jobs......Investment in new production methods can also increase production and will lowers costs.....any over spill of redundant workers will migrate to other areas that are increasing due to stimulus with similar or better wages...
And if we have less investment, overall reduction in consumer demand....this leads to deflation.....not inflation.
So....I will read up on economics.....how about you?
tangerinenotorange
Well-known member
A few years ago a report was presented to Parliament by Compass. The report was based on a full income scheme which would replace most means-tested benefits and a modified version which left the benefits in place. The report concluded that a full scheme would be difficult to implement as it would be too expensive at £8.2bn a year and poorer households could lose out. However, it found that a modified scheme paying less would be workable. The report says it would “raise average incomes at the bottom, reduce poverty levels, significantly for children, and reduce the level of inequality, all at a manageable cost”. The report didn't consider that the scheme would decrease productivity or increase prices or inflation, but would boost the demand for goods and services, raise average incomes, reduce poverty levels and reduce the level of inequality, all at a manageable cost.
UBI was considered by voters in Switzerland in 2016 with adults to receive approx £1,770 per month and children £440 a month, but was rejected. The pandemic has renewed interest in the subject and it will be interesting to see how it works in Spain, where it will soon be introduced on a permanent basis.
Last edited:
bollieboy
Well-known member
Stimulating the economy through spending on value added activity is Keynsian theory. I've not an issue with that.
Adding significant non-value added burden to business adds no value to the economy. You may as well get unemployed to dig and then fill in holes.
Or maybe you just like digging holes.
bollieboy
Well-known member
UBI is an interesting proposition but is an entirely different argument from that put forward by TTJ. With increased automation and use of AI it is something that should be seriously looked at.
Dark_Side_of_the_Lune
Well-known member
Oi Robbie before patronising another poster, have you caught up with the ‘0fficial Sensitive’ report I linked you in to the other day? You know, the one which blew out of the water your ill-informed opinion which you had felt had entitled you to call my ‘generalisations’ nonsense. Go to the Leicester thread if you ignored the original tag. Oh and it was the Grauniad which lifted the cover on the report I had based my specific intelligence upon. Eating humble pie must be a diet you tire of after all these years backing the wrong horse.
B
basilrobbie
Guest
No, I didn't read it. In any case, its how you use the information - or misinterpret it - that is the issue. If you want to put collective labels on huge swathes of people to make some half-arsed argument, that's up to you. But you are the one who is making it personal because someone had the cheek to contradict you.
Lala
Well-known member
That makes perfect sense to me.
Not sure what we are supposedly missing on this one
Shandypants
Well-known member
For those who think giving out money is the answer, perhaps a functional brain?That makes perfect sense to me.
Not sure what we are supposedly missing on this one
tangerinenotorange
Well-known member
I'm surprised at you Shandy. That's a very socialist concept you are dismissing.
Lala
Well-known member
Shandypants
Well-known member
Actually I wasn't. You agreed with Basil and I used your point to highlight some of the nonsense on here. Please remove that defensive shield.It’s me he’s dismissingas per
Tangerine you claim its a socialists principle giving away "free" money, that isn't actually remotely true is it?
Wizaard
Well-known member
I think Tory policies have always been about giving money away, but only to a select few.
tommytwojags
Well-known member
In my brief post I didn't expressly mention the issue of Keynesian Economics but, seeing that the subject has been raised by B-Side, I do think it's time for the UK to develop this concept. The well established belief that the expansion of free market thinking solves all economic problems and creates full employment is becoming less realistic. In other words, Keynes considered that the theory of supply creating demand was outdated and the opposite thinking, that output is determined by demand, was preferable.
In the future, it is inconceivable that everyone who wants to work will be able to do so. We can see now that job opportunities are disappearing and will not be coming back. Business sectors such as car manufacturing, retail and travel are shrinking and will not be returning as demand slides, and businesses that continue will require human intervention less and less as robotics and artificial intelligence take over both skilled and unskilled work roles.
In the 1930s Keynes acknowledged that during recessions spending by individuals is reduced, so demand is reduced. Therefore, businesses suffer. Because businesses are not selling goods and services their investment reduces and they cease to expand. This produces a downward spiral with consumers who are worried about losing their jobs lacking confidence and cutting spending, businesses losing demand for their products and the economy slowing down. In turn, this leads to increased unemployment and poverty and inevitably recession.
In very simple terms, Keynesian economics works on the principle that for an economy to stabilise and thrive, there has to be demand for the goods and services it produces and that demand must come from four sources: consumers, business investment, government spending and net trade with other economies in the form of exports. To stabilise and correct the difficulties arising from an unpredicted crisis such as that currently experienced globally as a result of the pandemic, the government should intervene to increase it’s own investment in business and infrastructure, to improve confidence and encourage consumers to spend and increase demand which, in turn, should lead to business investment, increase in consumer confidence, higher employment and a healthy economy. The overarching principle is that aggregate demand, measured by the total expenditure by consumers, businesses and the government determines the overall health of the economy.
The recent government announcement of massive investment in infrastructure projects is consistent with these economic principles as is the maintenance of low interest rates and low tax rates to stimulate the economy. All these are intended to improve consumer confidence, boost employment and increase spending. What Keynes couldn’t have foreseen were the changes brought about by technical evolution and the automation of jobs in all sectors, leading to high levels of unemployment. So, this links us to the issue of Universal Basic Income, as raised in this thread. Dismissed by some on here as fanciful, it is, in my opinion, inevitable that this will exist in the future as jobs disappear and people demand more leisure time. Costings show that goverments can afford to pay citizens for doing nothing, provided those citizens spend the money and invest to keep the economy stimulated. As TNO says, there is no evidence that the scheme would decrease productivity or increase prices or inflation, but that it would boost the demand for goods and services, raise average incomes and reduce poverty. But that’s another discussion.
By the way, I’m not saying I’m right, but it’s just one opinion among many.
In the future, it is inconceivable that everyone who wants to work will be able to do so. We can see now that job opportunities are disappearing and will not be coming back. Business sectors such as car manufacturing, retail and travel are shrinking and will not be returning as demand slides, and businesses that continue will require human intervention less and less as robotics and artificial intelligence take over both skilled and unskilled work roles.
In the 1930s Keynes acknowledged that during recessions spending by individuals is reduced, so demand is reduced. Therefore, businesses suffer. Because businesses are not selling goods and services their investment reduces and they cease to expand. This produces a downward spiral with consumers who are worried about losing their jobs lacking confidence and cutting spending, businesses losing demand for their products and the economy slowing down. In turn, this leads to increased unemployment and poverty and inevitably recession.
In very simple terms, Keynesian economics works on the principle that for an economy to stabilise and thrive, there has to be demand for the goods and services it produces and that demand must come from four sources: consumers, business investment, government spending and net trade with other economies in the form of exports. To stabilise and correct the difficulties arising from an unpredicted crisis such as that currently experienced globally as a result of the pandemic, the government should intervene to increase it’s own investment in business and infrastructure, to improve confidence and encourage consumers to spend and increase demand which, in turn, should lead to business investment, increase in consumer confidence, higher employment and a healthy economy. The overarching principle is that aggregate demand, measured by the total expenditure by consumers, businesses and the government determines the overall health of the economy.
The recent government announcement of massive investment in infrastructure projects is consistent with these economic principles as is the maintenance of low interest rates and low tax rates to stimulate the economy. All these are intended to improve consumer confidence, boost employment and increase spending. What Keynes couldn’t have foreseen were the changes brought about by technical evolution and the automation of jobs in all sectors, leading to high levels of unemployment. So, this links us to the issue of Universal Basic Income, as raised in this thread. Dismissed by some on here as fanciful, it is, in my opinion, inevitable that this will exist in the future as jobs disappear and people demand more leisure time. Costings show that goverments can afford to pay citizens for doing nothing, provided those citizens spend the money and invest to keep the economy stimulated. As TNO says, there is no evidence that the scheme would decrease productivity or increase prices or inflation, but that it would boost the demand for goods and services, raise average incomes and reduce poverty. But that’s another discussion.
By the way, I’m not saying I’m right, but it’s just one opinion among many.
Tangerinemoss
Well-known member
Fair analysis by TTJ of Keynesian Economics in the modern world
So why did all you tub thumping Tories give Gordon Brown pelters when he continued the big capital projects post Banking Crisis, to keep the economy growing? It was a well thought through decision, based on sound proven economics. Instead, we got austerity, massive cuts to all our services, police, armed forces, and an ongoing 12 years of poverty for many. Even Boris has made clear he will not go back to austerity to get out of the current situation, he will grow the economy (he says) instead.
This makes me so mad, all those lost opportunities, all those wrecked lives, all that crime unsolved, all that community support not given. That is the real legacy of the one trick totally incompetent, missing every target they set themselves, useless Government of Cameron and Osborne.
So why did all you tub thumping Tories give Gordon Brown pelters when he continued the big capital projects post Banking Crisis, to keep the economy growing? It was a well thought through decision, based on sound proven economics. Instead, we got austerity, massive cuts to all our services, police, armed forces, and an ongoing 12 years of poverty for many. Even Boris has made clear he will not go back to austerity to get out of the current situation, he will grow the economy (he says) instead.
This makes me so mad, all those lost opportunities, all those wrecked lives, all that crime unsolved, all that community support not given. That is the real legacy of the one trick totally incompetent, missing every target they set themselves, useless Government of Cameron and Osborne.
glasshalffull
Well-known member
Fair analysis by TTJ of Keynesian Economics in the modern world
So why did all you tub thumping Tories give Gordon Brown pelters when he continued the big capital projects post Banking Crisis, to keep the economy growing? It was a well thought through decision, based on sound proven economics. Instead, we got austerity, massive cuts to all our services, police, armed forces, and an ongoing 12 years of poverty for many. Even Boris has made clear he will not go back to austerity to get out of the current situation, he will grow the economy (he says) instead.
This makes me so mad, all those lost opportunities, all those wrecked lives, all that crime unsolved, all that community support not given. That is the real legacy of the one trick totally incompetent, missing every target they set themselves, useless Government of Cameron and Osborne.
I would have “liked” that at least one more time if this damned machine would have let me
.