To be completely cheesed off. More F-ing brexit chaos

[Theworldisfullofgs]

The European Medical Agency left their London offices today to relocate to Amsterdam.
900 jobs. Lost our leading role in evaluating medicines.

No clear pathway forward.

What they should of written on that bus

Step forward into chaos, we have no idea and we're just telling you what you want to hear: Vote Leave.

Clearly, initially our income would fall dramatically and we would have a bad recession or even a depression.

This wasn't what was on the side of the bus, or stated by the Leavers and you know it.

Vote Leave to suffer hardship until your grandchildren reach pension age, is not exactly a winning slogan.

Hmm, that's not a fair comparison, because it includes housing allowances and other expenses, yet the PM's didn't.

Do keep up dear.

Prime Minister's "Perks" are worth £2m

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/theresa-may-pay-salary-benefits-perks_uk_5970be18e4b0aa14ea7810c4

The leaked papers show that EU officials in the “AD 11” grade, a middle management group, have gross earnings of £112,090, including expatriation and household allowances But because they pay just 13.4 per cent in tax, they take home £83,357 in net pay

Interesting that the DT didn't show detailed figures, as Eurocontrol, which whilst not an EU agency uses the same pay scales and also has employees paying an internal tax, has deductions of 29.6% for an AD11, excluding allowances.

Hmm, that's not a fair comparison, because it includes housing allowances and other expenses, yet the PM's didn't
Do keep up dear

I can honestly say that I'm not at all bothered by how many allowances and expenses the prime minister of our country receives. If JC ever makes it to PM (god forbid) he can put down as many Burberry raincoats on his expense account as he likes.

No Clav, you compared EU civil servants salaries and benefits with the PM's salary without including benefits.

Its an inaccurate comparison, and as you are always about absolute semantic accuracy, then its worth pulling up,

Interesting that the DT didn't show detailed figures, as Eurocontrol, which whilst not an EU agency uses the same pay scales and also has employees paying an internal tax, has deductions of 29.6% for an AD11, excluding allowances

I think I read somewhere that EU staff pay 10-11% in pension contributions?

There was actually a Treasury written question (concerning EU staff pensions) answered yesterday.

As set out in the Withdrawal Agreement, as part of the Financial Settlement, the United Kingdom shall be liable to the Union for its share of the financing of the Union's liabilities incurred until 31 December 2020, including pensions. The UK’s share, as set out under Article 139, shall be a percentage calculated as the ratio between the EU Budget contributions made available by the United Kingdom in the years 2014 to 2020 and those EU Budget contributions made available during that period by all Member States and the United Kingdom. The Office for Budget Responsibility in October 2018, estimated the UK’s share of the EU’s pension liabilities as set out in the Withdrawal Agreement, at €9.75 billion

Who cares how much politicians earn at the moment. We have far worse problems to sort out.. that's not a priority at the moment.

People seem to lose sight of the fact that Our entire contribution to the EU budget (including any politicians' salaries) was less than 0.7% of GDP.

The lost unrestricted access to a market on our doorstep worth $18.8 trillion of 500 million consumers is more of a problem.
The discussion on this thread is focussing on the slice of the chart with the red arrow. We need to focus of what Brexit is doing that is shrinking the whole chart.

It's playing "squirrel" while the house burns lonelyplanetmum, in the hope that people don't notice it's getting a bit warm.

Exactly misti

I think EU pension / health / unemployment deductions are about 12.5% in total?

No Clav, you compared EU civil servants salaries and benefits with the PM's salary without including benefits

Er, no - the reason that I linked to the DT article is because you said;
Leaves out the fact that average deduction of tax is between 12–25 % according to EU figures and the DT article gave a figure of 13.4% tax, which seemed ridiculously low to me on the quoted salary - national tax paid in the UK on that salary would be 40% above £46,000; the comparison with the PM was a by-product. Do keep up dear

However, I now wonder if the DT have missed out the 6-7% special levy which EU staff pay? Nevertheless, 19%/20% tax is still considerably lower than 40% tax.

Confusing average with marginal rates really shows your lack of understanding here.

Do keep up dear.

In comparison someone in the UK on £46 pays an average rate of income tax of 14%.

Do keep up dear.

BorisBogtrotter
Confusing average with marginal rates really shows your lack of understanding here

You might be right, but did my point warrant an in depth tax calculation? I said, national tax paid in the UK on that salary would be 40% above £46,000 - i.e. earnings above £46K are taxed at a rate of 40%. The marginal rate of tax above £46K is 40% (up to £150K). Is that correct? What is the marginal rate of tax above £46K for EU staff? I don't know the answer to that one.

Perhaps you would prefer me to point out that staff at EUROCONTROL (mentioned by Buteo) also have, quote; the opportunity to purchase a car that is exempted from VAT (currently 21%)?

To quote you exactly; "the DT article gave a figure of 13.4% tax, which seemed ridiculously low to me on the quoted salary - national tax paid in the UK on that salary would be 40% above £46,000"

You compared an average rate of tax with a marginal rate of tax and said that the average rate was low in comparison, so pointing it out that this is inaccurate is totally acceptable.

Starting to add in benefits of jobs is a bit desperate.

The taxes of EU staff are also progressive, the top marginal rate of all deductions is about 54% .

But again, it takes away from your point that the EMA had so many applicants because they didn't pay national tax.

Boris,

'You can say it it doesn't make you right.

A significant fall in house prices for one, means that mortgages are harder to come by, with bigger deposits needed, and smaller multiples of salaries.

It means fewer properties on the market.'

What a fascinating argument! Let's consider a little proof by contradiction here. You are saying that what the salaried middle classes really need to get on the housing market in London is rapid house price growth because then (to use the inverse of your argument) mortgages will be easy to come by, smaller deposits will be needed and there will be more properties on the market. So, what should happen is a doctor on £80k, should be able to put down a 50k deposit on an £750k house (you don't get much for that in London) and borrow the rest on the assumption that interest rates will stay low and, eventually, as house prices just keep on rising, he can sell the house at a huge profit and pay off the by then trivial sum of £700k.

Haven't we been there before in 2006-2008. It did not end well then and won't now.

And just because you say it does not make it right either.

Misti,

'If you want competent people you have to pay them. One of the problems with British public life is that it is littered with people who couldn't get any other job at the same level because they are not qualified or capable.'

This is a very dangerous argument. It assumes that the public sector should compete in pay with the private sector. And that the only motivation that matters to people is money.

I know personally two people who have given up jobs with compensation in the millions to take up public service positions for 10-20% of what they were previously earning. They are really enjoying the work and feel that they are making a difference.

Many of the my friend's children are graduating now and they are actually looking for jobs where they can make a difference, not just to max out their comp.

It is hugely insulting (and untrue) to imply that, if you work for less than £150k, you lack the competence to do a good job.

Peregrina.

''Clearly, initially our income would fall dramatically and we would have a bad recession or even a depression.'

This wasn't what was on the side of the bus, or stated by the Leavers and you know it.

Vote Leave to suffer hardship until your grandchildren reach pension age, is not exactly a winning slogan.'

I have never claimed that Brexit was anything other than a protest vote, in fact that is the point I have made repeatedly. The bus with the silly slogan on, which is such an obsession with this board, was (IMO) hardly a factor in many leavers' decision.

Again history is not on your side. there are many charts available on economic depressions and recessions. The US data is easiest to access and goes back longer than 200 years. The longest period of economic decline (excluding the war years ) was 4 years and, looking at GDP, even the event of 1929 was fully recovered from by 1936, as in 1936 GDP exceeded 1929 GDP.

Strawman argument there Larry, I didn't "Say" any of that at all.

The problems I highlighted that buyers have during house prices crashes are well documented. The reticent nature of lending, the issue with gaining mortgages, passing the stricter eligibility criteria, the increased size of deposits needed as well as lower multiples of mortgages have occurred in every single housing down turn recorded. The other issue is also a lower level of supply as those in negative equity will not move.

These are all observable impacts of a fall in house prices.

Claiming that a fall in house prices is good for buyers relies or ceteris paribus.

Lets for the Bank of England worse case scenario.

House prices fall 30%. Your average London flat (2018 prices) has fallen from £421k to £294.7k. This sounds like a great drop and means that it would be more affordable.

However, your £421k flat with current deposit rules needed 10%, so £42,100.

The far reduced flat needs a deposit of £73, 675, a 79 percent increase on the deposit needed at the old price.

A couple earning a combined income of £84k ( a little above London average but achievable) would be able to get a 4.5 mortgage at the current time.

A mortgage multiple rate of 2.5 percent ( as in the last crash) would require a joint income of £88410.

So no, a downturn is not good for buyers.

The bus with the silly slogan on, which is such an obsession with this board, was (IMO) hardly a factor in many leavers' decision.

That is only your opinion. I doubt if they would have bothered this slogan if people didn't value the NHS. That may not be a majority of Leavers, but certainly enough to swing the result.

Boris,

You are ignoring actually paying the interest and sensitivity to interest rate increases. As well as the small matter of repaying the principal.

And, more importantly, unless you believe in the nirvana of house price rises forever, a fall allows those buying for the first time to benefit from the significant rises that follow.

Your argument (with some very random hypothetical numbers thrown in to give it a veneer of analytical credibility) relies on repealing the law of supply and demand forever, or else it is a Ponzi scheme.

I do remember reading some very well crafted economic research pieces in 2007 arguing very similarly about the US housing market and how the relaxation of borrowing criteria was a big positive as it allowed people to get on the housing ladder.

The bus with the silly slogan on, which is such an obsession with this board, was (IMO) hardly a factor in many leavers' decision

Didn't need to be, just 650k voters had to have been swung by this slogan.
It was a very important advertising slogan, witnessed by the Leave campaigners taking every opportunity to be seen next to the coach.

I'm surprised that someone with your apparent knowledge dismisses it so lightly.

Interesting article by the deputy head of the policy unit in Cameron's government. Not too much on the battle bus...

www.politico.eu/article/why-we-lost-the-brexit-vote-former-uk-prime-minister-david-cameron/

"You are ignoring actually paying the interest and sensitivity to interest rate increases. As well as the small matter of repaying the principal."

Except the mortgage company would have done that with their applications. People can get 4.5 mortages, at the moment.

You are claiming I'm perpetuating your strawman argument, I never suggested that at all, so essentially you are answering yourself.

The figures I used are that to buy an average London flat, demonstrating that a house price fall does not benefit people.

Lets do it with another.

Couple on the London average of 33k, so a £66k joint income.

A two bed flat in Enfield currently costs £300,000, this is the cheaper end of the market.

www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-57672297.html

Currently with a 10% deposit of £30K, they can get a mortgage on just over 4 times their income.

A 30% drop in house prices causes this property to fall to £210,000. However the banks now require 25% deposits as they did in the last house price fall. This means that our couple now need £52.5 k in order to purchase the flat.

They can in fact get the mortgage of 2.5 times their joint salary, but need a deposit which is 73% larger than they needed previously.

So whilst the flat was more achievable under current economic conditions, than under a crash.

I'm not arguing that house prices need to rise, I'm arguing that a crash does not make it easier for people ( especially FTB) to buy.