Talk

Advanced search

“Millionaire who funds Leave EU campaign may think £4,300 a year per family isn’t much money, but it is."

(4 Posts)
ifonlyalabama Tue 14-Feb-17 00:56:51

I worry that a lot of mums won't be prepared for this

Millionaire Aaron Banks says £4,300 p.a. per family cost of Brexit is 'an absolute bargain'

Mr Banks, who bankrolls the Leave.EU campaign, says £4,300 a year is a small price to pay for restoring Britain's independence

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/millionaire-aaron-banks-says-4300-7782726#ICID=sharebar_twitter

Millionaire Brexit backer Aaron Banks has described the £4,300 a year it's claimed leaving the EU will cost British families as "an absolute bargain."

Mr Banks, who bankrolls the Leave.EU campaign supported by Nigel Farage and Tory MP Peter Bone , said the basis of the Treasury's claim was "flimsy", but said even if it were true, it would be worth the money to get out of the Union.

The shock claim comes in a 200-page Treasury report which claims Britain's economy would shrink 6% by 2030 if Britain copied Canada's approach - a deal pushed by Boris Johnson.

"Their worst-case scenario of £4,300 per household is a bargain basement price for the restoration of national independence and safe, secure borders," said Mr Banks.

"There are 6.7 million households in Britain, averaging about 2.3 people - £4,300 per year per would cost the average Briton just 21p per hour, and in exchange we'd be getting back the power to control immigration, set our own laws, manage our own farms and fishing waters, and strike our own trade deals."

A former Tory donor, insurance magnate Mr Banks switched to Ukip in 2014, donating £1m to Nigel Farage's party.

He has an estimated net worth of £100m, and a controlling interest in a diamond mine in South Africa.

TUC General Secretary Frances O’Grady said: “The millionaire who funds the Leave EU campaign may think £4,300 a year per family isn’t much money. But losing that much would be a disaster for most working families.

That’s why the TUC has consistently warned of Brexit ’s risk to jobs and to an economy that works for everyone."

PerspicaciaTick Tue 14-Feb-17 01:05:57

£4300 is more than I will earn this year. I've only recently started earning again since being a SAHM. It does my heart good to know that all my efforts, all my frantic juggling of work and school runs and weekends away from my family are being pissed up the wall for the sake of fucking Brexit. Although I suppose I should just be grateful that my family have a zero sum gain - rather a nett loss.

ZackyVengeance Tue 14-Feb-17 16:55:15

i don't even earn 21p and hour (carer) so it s a massive ammount

prh47bridge Tue 14-Feb-17 22:11:59

This report in the Mirror is nearly a year old and has a basic problem - the central premise is a barefaced lie by the Mirror, although, to be fair, they were taking their lead from the Remain campaign.

As the Mirror was well aware, the Treasury document referred to did NOT predict that the economy will shrink by 6% by 2030. Its prediction (which has been widely rubbished and which even the Treasury has abandoned - remember that this document was produced with the sole purpose of scaring people into voting to remain in the EU) was that the economy would grow at a slightly slower rate as a result of which it will be 6% smaller in 2030 than it would be if we didn't leave the EU. Turning that into £4,300 per household is meaningless. Households will not lose £4,300 compared to today. They won't even be £4,300 worse off than they would have been if we had stayed in the EU.

If you have a household income of, say, £20k per year and your pay rises in line with GDP (which is very unlikely), if we assume that growth if we stayed in the EU would be in line with the long run trend rate (2.5%), your income in 2030 would be £28250. In the (highly unlikely) situation that the Treasury projection was correct, your income in 2030 would be £27060. So you would be £7060 a year better off instead of £8250 a year better off - a long way from a £4300 loss.

Even if we ignore the reasons for which this document was produced, this was an economic forecast. To quote a famous economist, "The only function of economic forecasts is to make astrology look respectable". Economists cannot accurately predict what will happen in the economy in the next 14 days. Why would their prediction for the next 14 years be right?

I would also note that the amount of growth the Treasury predicted we might lose over 14 years is at the noise level in economic terms. Lots of events can cause the economy to go up or down by more than this.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now