Bye Bye Sunak..

[Jobbo]

Losing child benefit, personal allowance at 50k, 100k etc are shitty policies that have a big impact on comfortable households.

It wouldn't even affect a large % of voters but those that do PAYE at £250k+ are relatively few but a 1 or 2% wealth tax on income above would create a chunk of revenue with little pushback.

Would it create any revenue worth putting in the figures? I can see it happening but only for politics, not actually raising money.

[ZedLeg]

I don't have a problem with the idea that borders are not completely open, no.

Obviously how that is implemented is everything, isn't it. I'm sure that Farage's plan is not likely to be the most balanced or rational way of doing it.

Question is how do you chop net migration by >80% without whatever you do being a pretty radical change.

its all pretty simple, you go to the magic money tree, take that money to the "magic border police and wall" shop and buy all the border police and walls you need! Problem solved - NEXT!

Very good Rich.

[Nefarious]

I'm not sure what you're referring to particularly but presume it is migration related? The simple fact is that net migration of nearly three quarters of a million p.a. (750,000 in 2022 and 685,000 2023) - both ONS figures - are completely unsustainable. The pre-pandemic figures were under a quarter of a million. This is similar to Germany but radically more than France (183,000 in 2023).

Clearly that is a system that needs to be completely overhauled and anyone that thinks we live in a country where sufficient housing and infrastructure is being built to cater for that influx is living in cloud cuckoo land.

It could be that those recent years are a deviation from the mean and will revert to a much lower level, but nonetheless a system which has no control over the figure expanding by a multiple of 3 is clearly not something that applies any kind of effective constraint.

Those migration figures are a choice, and have nothing whatsoever to do with the six people and their dog that came across the channel in a dingy.
If you want to cut them by 80%, it's easy - decide that you don't want to sell university places as an international good and pay domestic frontline healthcare staff a decent wage. Done.

[Carlos]

Losing child benefit, personal allowance at 50k, 100k etc are shitty policies that have a big impact on comfortable households.

It wouldn't even affect a large % of voters but those that do PAYE at £250k+ are relatively few but a 1 or 2% wealth tax on income above would create a chunk of revenue with little pushback.

Would it create any revenue worth putting in the figures? I can see it happening but only for politics, not actually raising money.

There are 25,000+ million plus earners in the UK so even those paying an extra 2% should yield a billion+.

I'm not sure if that is significant enough fiscally but it would be a drop in the ocean to net income on the individual.

[ZedLeg]

I'm not sure what you're referring to particularly but presume it is migration related? The simple fact is that net migration of nearly three quarters of a million p.a. (750,000 in 2022 and 685,000 2023) - both ONS figures - are completely unsustainable. The pre-pandemic figures were under a quarter of a million. This is similar to Germany but radically more than France (183,000 in 2023).

Clearly that is a system that needs to be completely overhauled and anyone that thinks we live in a country where sufficient housing and infrastructure is being built to cater for that influx is living in cloud cuckoo land.

It could be that those recent years are a deviation from the mean and will revert to a much lower level, but nonetheless a system which has no control over the figure expanding by a multiple of 3 is clearly not something that applies any kind of effective constraint.

Those migration figures are a choice, and have nothing whatsoever to do with the six people and their dog that came across the channel in a dingy.
If you want to cut them by 80%, it's easy - decide that you don't want to sell university places as an international good and pay domestic frontline healthcare staff a decent wage. Done.

Get out of here with your common sense, I was looking forward to watching GG soft pedal himself into voting for Reform

[GG.]

Losing child benefit, personal allowance at 50k, 100k etc are shitty policies that have a big impact on comfortable households.

It wouldn't even affect a large % of voters but those that do PAYE at £250k+ are relatively few but a 1 or 2% wealth tax on income above would create a chunk of revenue with little pushback.

Would it create any revenue worth putting in the figures? I can see it happening but only for politics, not actually raising money.

Simon is of course correct. The revenue raised would be small and this is in the broader context of unsustainable and unsutaintably concentrated levels of taxation.

Tax revenues currently are sat at 41% of GDP and of all income tax 29% is paid by the top 1%, e.g. the group you've just suggested taxing more... We should be trying as hard as possible to improve both of those figures as having such an incredibly high tax take (it was nearly 10% lower in 1990 and 4-5% lower as recently as pre-pandemic) and levying it increasingly on a small slice pf the population (many of whom are not British and may decide to go home) is particularly irresponsible.

I would also point out that the phrase "wealth tax on income" is a contradiction in terms - I presume you just mean more income tax. One point you may not be aware of is that the group you mention (£250k+, PAYE) is a small group but also probably the worst off of all very high earners as no clever structuring is possible (see all TV presenters that are currently or have been through the courts for reducing tax via contracting or other schemes, by contrast). They also have the possibility for any tax free pension contributions taken away from them so if their employer contributes to a pension scheme, you get a big bill at the end of the year for that - i.e. they already pay appreciably above the face level of income tax that people in the bracket below pay on account of removal of reliefs. Plus of course, the tax take has gone up dramatically with the reduction in bands put in place by the Tories.

So basically - no, it isn't a good idea - wouldn't raise much revenue and in combination with changes like increasing tax on carry for employees of funds, is going to equal a pretty toxic attack on the city of London, in effect.

What I would wholeheartedly agree with is that the cliff edge reduction on child benefit is a rotten and mean spirited system and Sunak again failed - he's made it per household now but just fucking get rid of it. Do whatever you need to do but eliminate injustices like that - that should be one of the key reasons the Conservatives exist and they have utterly failed.

[GG.]

I'm not sure what you're referring to particularly but presume it is migration related? The simple fact is that net migration of nearly three quarters of a million p.a. (750,000 in 2022 and 685,000 2023) - both ONS figures - are completely unsustainable. The pre-pandemic figures were under a quarter of a million. This is similar to Germany but radically more than France (183,000 in 2023).

Clearly that is a system that needs to be completely overhauled and anyone that thinks we live in a country where sufficient housing and infrastructure is being built to cater for that influx is living in cloud cuckoo land.

It could be that those recent years are a deviation from the mean and will revert to a much lower level, but nonetheless a system which has no control over the figure expanding by a multiple of 3 is clearly not something that applies any kind of effective constraint.

Those migration figures are a choice, and have nothing whatsoever to do with the six people and their dog that came across the channel in a dingy.
If you want to cut them by 80%, it's easy - decide that you don't want to sell university places as an international good and pay domestic frontline healthcare staff a decent wage. Done.

See post from 8.29pm yesterday. I'm all in favour of your comment in bold.

Of interest would be the specific breakdown of those immigrating in the past 12 months - what percentage are students, how many are healthcare professsionals. Does anyone have a link to that information? Are students and healthcare professionals 80% of the annual total.

[Jobbo]

The other reason it wouldn't work well is that it would be too easy to avoid falling into that bracket. I have a company; if my profit is £500k in a year and I want to take it out, I could relatively easily structure things so that my wife gets £250k and I get £250k, avoiding the extra. If my profit is £600k I can leave £100k in the company and take out £250k each. £250k each is plenty to live on; and I could waste the money left in the company on a Taycan.

Flat rate taxes avoid this sort of structuring (not exactly aggressive tax planning, so it's not something that could be cracked down on by an anti-avoidance law), but no party is up for tax reform.

What proportion of people who make £250k+ (or even £150k+) are PAYE anyway? It must be fractions of a fraction of the population.

[GG.]

but no party is up for tax reform.

[Jobbo]

but no party is up for tax reform.

To be fair, you'd probably be hit harder because you're an easy political target, so probably something to be grateful for!

[Nefarious]

I'm not sure what you're referring to particularly but presume it is migration related? The simple fact is that net migration of nearly three quarters of a million p.a. (750,000 in 2022 and 685,000 2023) - both ONS figures - are completely unsustainable. The pre-pandemic figures were under a quarter of a million. This is similar to Germany but radically more than France (183,000 in 2023).

Clearly that is a system that needs to be completely overhauled and anyone that thinks we live in a country where sufficient housing and infrastructure is being built to cater for that influx is living in cloud cuckoo land.

It could be that those recent years are a deviation from the mean and will revert to a much lower level, but nonetheless a system which has no control over the figure expanding by a multiple of 3 is clearly not something that applies any kind of effective constraint.

Those migration figures are a choice, and have nothing whatsoever to do with the six people and their dog that came across the channel in a dingy.
If you want to cut them by 80%, it's easy - decide that you don't want to sell university places as an international good and pay domestic frontline healthcare staff a decent wage. Done.

See post from 8.29pm yesterday. I'm all in favour of your comment in bold.

Of interest would be the specific breakdown of those immigrating in the past 12 months - what percentage are students, how many are healthcare professsionals. Does anyone have a link to that information? Are students and healthcare professionals 80% of the annual total.

International students are 39%
Work visas are 21% (with the "majority" in healthcare). 27% are their dependents.

ETA: Source - Oxford university Migration Observatory

[Rich B]

What proportion of people who make £250k+ (or even £150k+) are PAYE anyway? It must be fractions of a fraction of the population.

£150k+ PAYE is pretty common in the south/london - but still probably a pretty small fraction overall I guess.

[Nefarious]

As a national issue, immigration is the biggest red herring ever, and the only reason I can see for an intelligent person to raise it as an issue is a deliberate dog-whistle relying on the misinformation of others to create a knee jerk reaction.

As per my post about – legal migration is a policy choice. Want you fruit picked for tuppence ha’penny? Want to staff your carehomes with people willing to work in horrible conditions for little money? Grant lots of visas to potential migrants and their families.
Want to sell university places for £100k a pop to support revenues at universities without increasing fees to domestic students? Grant lots of student visas.
If you don’t want those things, don’t grant the visas or make policies which encourage that migration!

What you can’t do is conflate those big numbers with minuscule numbers for illegal migration and claim we have “open borders”.

What you can’t do either is conflate asylum claims with illegal migration. Granting asylum is the moral price you pay for being a major international arms dealer and foreign policy decisions to turn a blind eye to oppressive but wealthy regimes.

Of the top of my head, there are around 100k claims per year. 70% are granted on first application and around 65% of those rejected are granted on appeal.

I really don’t see a legitimate issue. The borders are fine. Just have an asylum application system that works and delivers decisions in a timely manner. Accept the 90k you are legally and morally required to with warm open arms, send the 10k home.

But for god’s sake, don’t use the fact that we need care workers to look after our old people as an excuse for thinly veiled jingoism, or use the dozen extra brown skinned people in your neighbourhood as an excuse for catastrophic underfunding of public sevices

[Jobbo]

What proportion of people who make £250k+ (or even £150k+) are PAYE anyway? It must be fractions of a fraction of the population.

£150k+ PAYE is pretty common in the south/london - but still probably a pretty small fraction overall I guess.

That's why I mentioned it - I can see that it may not be so rare in the SE but how many people in total is that? It makes you a political football without actually raising much money if an extra few percent of income tax were to be applied.

[GG.]

Those migration figures are a choice, and have nothing whatsoever to do with the six people and their dog that came across the channel in a dingy.
If you want to cut them by 80%, it's easy - decide that you don't want to sell university places as an international good and pay domestic frontline healthcare staff a decent wage. Done.

See post from 8.29pm yesterday. I'm all in favour of your comment in bold.

Of interest would be the specific breakdown of those immigrating in the past 12 months - what percentage are students, how many are healthcare professsionals. Does anyone have a link to that information? Are students and healthcare professionals 80% of the annual total.

International students are 39%
Work visas are 21% (with the "majority" in healthcare). 27% are their dependents.

ETA: Source - Oxford university Migration Observatory

Can you post the link? Are those percentages of the 750,000 number?

[Nefarious]

See post from 8.29pm yesterday. I'm all in favour of your comment in bold.

Of interest would be the specific breakdown of those immigrating in the past 12 months - what percentage are students, how many are healthcare professsionals. Does anyone have a link to that information? Are students and healthcare professionals 80% of the annual total.

International students are 39%
Work visas are 21% (with the "majority" in healthcare). 27% are their dependents.

ETA: Source - Oxford university Migration Observatory

Can you post the link? Are those percentages of the 750,000 number?

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/r ... om-the-uk/

ONS estimates show two main explanations for the 660,000 increase in non-EU immigration that took place between 2019 and 2023 (Figure 3):

Work visas. Almost half of the increase in non-EU immigration from 2019 to 2023 resulted from those arriving for work purposes (21%) and their dependants (27%). Health and care was the main industry driving the growth, including care workers who received access to the immigration system in February 2022. There was also higher demand for some workers who were already eligible for visas under the old system, such as doctors and nurses. Early data for 2024 suggest that health and care work visas had fallen substantially, however.
International students and their dependants accounted for a further 39% of the increase in non-EU immigration. The UK has an explicit strategy of increasing and diversifying foreign student recruitment, and it is also likely that the reintroduction of post-study work rights post-Brexit made the UK more attractive to international students. The 2023 figures do not yet reflect the impact of restrictions on students’ family members, introduced in January 2024.

[GG.]

I need to delve into the details but one thing that is interesting and why the "student" route is likely a huge loophole is that it should net out with students leaving at the end of their course so we're seeing a net influx of 250,000 students in a single year?

I mean the student dependents thing was nuts so it will be interesting to see what effect that has and whether it was being used as a significant way to game the system.

Just as a practical matter - you can't have the population increasing by a city 1.5x the size of Manchester annually so to an extent - however deserving or legitimate the entrants are, we're going to have to be more restrictive and there has to be some mechanism and administrative system in place to cater for that.

[Nefarious]

I need to delve into the details but one thing that is interesting and why the "student" route is likely a huge loophole is that it should net out with students leaving at the end of their course so we're seeing a net influx of 250,000 students in a single year?

I mean the student dependents thing was nuts so it will be interesting to see what effect that has and whether it was being used as a significant way to game the system.

Take off the paranoia hat for a second. The rest of the world are not looking for sneaky loopholes to be allowed to eek out a poverty existence on the outskirts of Bradford.

Tertiary education is a *massive* money spinner. I don;t know about averages, but at LSE the price for domestic students was £9k a year, the price for foreign, corporate sponsored students was £125k (and that was a few years ago).

Being able to stump up £100k and have the academic stones to get offered a place is a pretty big barrier to the ne'erdowells you're afraid of, and allowing them to bring dependents is a pretty necessary part of the sales pitch (and believe, we are pitching hard).

[GG.]

I need to delve into the details but one thing that is interesting and why the "student" route is likely a huge loophole is that it should net out with students leaving at the end of their course so we're seeing a net influx of 250,000 students in a single year?

I mean the student dependents thing was nuts so it will be interesting to see what effect that has and whether it was being used as a significant way to game the system.

Take off the paranoia hat for a second. The rest of the world are not looking for sneaky loopholes to be allowed to eek out a poverty existence on the outskirts of Bradford.

Tertiary education is a *massive* money spinner. I don;t know about averages, but at LSE the price for domestic students was £9k a year, the price for foreign, corporate sponsored students was £125k (and that was a few years ago).

Being able to stump up £100k and have the academic stones to get offered a place is a pretty big barrier to the ne'erdowells you're afraid of, and allowing them to bring dependents is a pretty necessary part of the sales pitch (and believe, we are pitching hard).

You're projecting what you think my objection is - I edited my post above to say that purely as a practical matter - irrespective of how brilliant these people are, there is not infrastrucure, housing, healthcare to cater for that many people. We don't even need to get into controversial aspects of the individuals behind the numbers or questions of culture that form politcal battlegrounds behind the subject.

You're also assuming that student = russell group university paying big fees is a significant proportion of these student visas - do we have any evidence of breakdown of destinations the students go to or what they pay/study? All of that seems like vital information to be able to draw sensible conclusions around this. The home office issuing visas must collect that information...

[Nefarious]

According to google, the average across all universities is apparently £22k a year. So a total of somewhere north of £66k depending on length of course and if people stay on for post grad. Still a pretty big filter if you're characterising them as a burden on the collective system.

And it's not like any of these students are on benefits or in any way putting an undue burden on services - they're paying their way. They pay an surcharge for healthcare, they pay for their housing (which via supply and demand pushed up prices and encourages more house building), they contribute to the economy. Where is the problem?