Tax rises to pay for Brexit

[Paul Waine]

OK, a bit more on "unemployment rate" and "unemployment ratio" (my deduction for the latter, I still haven't got my head around Eurostat's site).

Let's say there are 100 youths. Let's say that 60 youths are still at school or studying at uni. Let's say the other 40 are not studying/have finished studying and are looking for work. Let's say 30 of these are working and 10 are unemployed.

So, "unemployment rate" is 25% - the 10 who aren't working as percentage of the 40 who want to work.

The "unemployment ratio" is 10% - the 10 who aren't working as percentage of the 100 youths.

I can make sense of the figures. I can understand that there can be confusion between them. I can also understand why Eurostat provides both sets of stats.

If there were 200 youths, rather than 100 - and all the additional 100 were still studying and there were still 40 looking for work of which 10 ae unemployed, then the "unemployment rate" remains 25% but the "unemployment ratio" changes to 5% (10 who aren't working as percentage of 200).

In the working population as a whole, i.e. all age groups it is normal to use unemployment rate.

When we are discussing youths, where it is important that they get good quality education and training, it is very useful to use the unemployment ratio.

But, like all statistics we've got to be careful not to get them mixed up.

[Quickenthetempo]

I'm not going through the whole thread but tax rises are needed if we keep going more and more in debt.

If we keep going at the rate the tories are loading us up with debt despite austerity, it will be £500 billion interest every year before we even start paying for every day needs.

[If it be your will]

.

[RingoMcCartney]

Fair point Ringo, youth unemployment is a big issue, but not just in the eurozone

And it has to be said its impossible to have any problems if you have your own currency isn't it?

Youth unemployment is a blight and very corrosive. With Free movement, means the brightest (usually with no ties or commitments) of a country can up sticks and go to work (often for less than the locals otherwise there'd be no point going to just wallow on the dole in a foreign (rainy!) country). That damages the prospects for people who find themselves being undercut, but also means that the countries they have left are losing the best prospsects. The economy suffers further and like in Greece's case a terrible economic spiral can occur. In Greece, the IMF the ECB and the EU forced the Greek govenment to push through swingeing austerity cuts to their NHS. It was based on a percentage of Greek GDP. I cant remember the exact figures but, effectively the germans, cos its was their loans that were threatened, forced tham to reduce NHS spending by around 15%. BUT, because their economy collapsed and GDP shrank, it was effectively a real terms reduction of around 30%! This is something that the Eurocrats and especially the bullying, finger wagging, I know best, Wolfgang Schauble, know that this would be totally and utterly unacceptable to their own populace. But the project must proceed and at the end of the day, we're here on a football website arguing the toss about percentages. The beleaguerd Greek people are living it.

Glad you've accepted something that's common knowledge really, fair play.

But surely if a nation has the ability to raise and lower interest rates, to suit its short and long term economic requirements. It's economy and the prsopects of its people will be put at a distinct advatage, compared to one that cannot? No?

[RingoMcCartney]

Why on earth would a dedicated, official statistics site skew the statistics? This isn't North Korea.

You're showing yourself up as a europhobe, and accusing the actual facts as being europhile.

As my previous quote shows, you've made a common fallacy of not understanding the correct statistics.

There's no need to be a common phallous about it.

Sorry matey, its not me showing myself up.

I know, without the use of stats, that in many european countries youth unemployment is ramapnt.

All I did was google it as when you came up with your figures they just felt wrong, given what id seen and heard on on Sky News, RT, the BBC online etc, etc.

I just picked what appeared to be independent figures from a source that didnt appear to have an agenda.

Your now being told by another poster that you may have confused 2 separate figures.

And at the end of the day, this message board isnt the Spectator or The New Stateman or some heavy political thing. Its insignificant in the grand scheme of things it really is.

There's no need for the abuse fella. We already have the resident "Up The Clarets" message board poster, who's only too keen to pop its head out and call everybody an idiot.

[If it be your will]

.

[UpTheBeehole]

Apologies, it was too good an opportunity to turn down to link fallacy and phallus.

As If It Be Your Will has just said, seeing the statistics as they get reported (by the sides of the media with agendas) isn't the full story. It's patently ridiculous to class 15 year olds under the strict definition of 'unemployed', as those gross figures state.

[If it be your will]

.

[Lancasterclaret]

Ringo, I'm going to have to cede the floor to you on this one.

There is a shed load of stuff about this, and I just haven't got time today to go through it all.

I'd agree that the EU has made mistakes with those countries, but with the best intentions.

[BleedingClaret]

So which taxes will Teresa pump up to pay for our exit from Europe? I reckon pensioners will take the biggest hit. Anyone agree?

Not reading anymore, than the OP post.
We are a Net contributor to Europe so There's a saving and if we are fined*, that's short term and if we are persecuted in trade with member countries there is a whole big world out there.
We can save on healthcare and social on the 5 million less immigrants coming in over the next 10 years, and those job vacancies created that apparently they are needed for, in tandem with a sensible benefits system, can get more British back in work, more taxes paid less full benefits paid out.
*Should spend the fine money on defence and not pay the fines, and tell them to come and get it...... if they think that they are hard enough...

[RingoMcCartney]

Fair enough gents.

[nil_desperandum]

Not reading anymore, than the OP post.
We are a Net contributor to Europe so There's a saving and if we are fined*, that's short term and if we are persecuted in trade with member countries there is a whole big world out there.
We can save on healthcare and social on the 5 million less immigrants coming in over the next 10 years, and those job vacancies created that apparently they are needed for, in tandem with a sensible benefits system, can get more British back in work, more taxes paid less full benefits paid out.
*Should spend the fine money on defence and not pay the fines, and tell them to come and get it...... if they think that they are hard enough...

Sounds great in theory but having been a net contributor doesn't necessarily mean that we will be better off once we leave. (I don't think it's clear either way).
It all depends on how much of the 8.6 billion per year net contribution is immediately earmarked to pay for things that we currently get as members of the Single market etc.
e.g. How much has been promised to Nissan to keep the factory in Sunderland? (Just one of many examples).
To put this into context we are spending over 770 billion this year, so an extra 8.6 billion, (though obviously a bonus), is not going to go a long way in real terms.
It also depends on how well the economy copes. (i.e. will the tax take go up or down, and will there be more or less people in work / on benefits)
There are similar points that can made about immigration, since many economists regard immigration as vital to the economy, and bearing in mind that as immigration goes down from the EU it will most likely rise from the rest of the world as we negotiate trade deals with them.

[dsr]

Sidney, she's got 22% in the first round, which means 78% of French people voted for non-extremist parties. She might make 35% in the run off (bearing some really mental voting, the kind that puts northern england voting for Brexit into the shade) but Macron is going to win in two weeks time.

Actually the communist got 19%, so only 59% of the voters went for non-extremist parties.

[UpTheBeehole]

Stop being disingenuous, LFi is not a communist party

[dsr]

"La France insoumise is not a coalition of political parties. However, several political parties, branches or individuals announced their support for the movement once its programme had been agreed and its candidate chosen, including: the Left Party, the New Socialist Left, Together!, the French Communist Party, the Pole of Communist Revival in France and some elected officials and leaders of the Europe Ecology – The Greens (EELV). La France insoumise is a citizen movement and not a coalition, hence these organizations are not themselves parts of the movement." (Source - Wikipedia]

It's a party supported by a lot of communists, then.

[BleedingClaret]

Sounds great in theory but having been a net contributor doesn't necessarily mean that we will be better off once we leave. (I don't think it's clear either way).
It all depends on how much of the 8.6 billion per year net contribution is immediately earmarked to pay for things that we currently get as members of the Single market etc.
e.g. How much has been promised to Nissan to keep the factory in Sunderland? (Just one of many examples).
To put this into context we are spending over 770 billion this year, so an extra 8.6 billion, (though obviously a bonus), is not going to go a long way in real terms.
It also depends on how well the economy copes. (i.e. will the tax take go up or down, and will there be more or less people in work / on benefits)
There are similar points that can made about immigration, since many economists regard immigration as vital to the economy, and bearing in mind that as immigration goes down from the EU it will most likely rise from the rest of the world as we negotiate trade deals with them.

Hi mate,
I know I'm over simplifying it all, but do I think it's about control, and with hindsight individual deals between countries is surely the way to do it, and imo not accepting deals that say if we sell you our bananas you must take 1 of our poorer people for every tonne.