The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in CH

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	TonyClifton
	You know all this of course, and you’re not actually interested in what I said. This is the tiresome aspect in online discussion. I made a perfectly reasonable statement, but rather than trying to refute it, you’d prefer to try and catch me out by having me breakdown and explain every word in its minutest detail. Well sorry, I don’t play this game.

I'm being perfectly reasonable in asking that you cite your source for reference. When I google the term you specified it gave @ 11,800,000 results with various extrapolations, so I'm still none the wiser as to which information you're referring to, thus I cannot debate it. Even the term 'social grades' has several classification systems in the UK, and you haven't indicated which of those you are using as your reference point.

You've made a statement and framed it as a fact and/or "perfectly reasonable". All I'm asking is what makes you believe it to be so?

[John William]

Those lets play dirty rotten Tory Brexit scoundrels

Leaked government Brexit papers confirm Labour and Trade Unionists worst fears of Tory plans to
dilute workers rights in the UK after Brexit.

BBC News - Brexit fears over workers rights confirmed say Labour

[autopoiesis]

	Quote:	Blueangel
	You wrote; "When looking at the referendum result by social grade, lower social grade groups voted to leave while the higher ones voted to remain." It's entirely up to you to define the 'social grades' you refer to, and to prove that these were used as a measure to quantify the referendum result. You've repeatedly failed to offer a single link, explanation, example or evidence for your claim along with evidence that your claim is 'generally accepted'. Amongst whom (?) for example. The onus is upon you to clarify and quantify your statement in order to legitimise it.

Hi Blueangel,


Sorry to be late responding to this (although I'd already mentioned one of the references below in post 23203).


(Apols also for responding - ie with links - to a question you'd asked of someone else!)



################################################## ###################
Publication: "Who voted for Brexit?"
Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...76268018301320

Notable quote (page 10):
"[...]we find that respondents who receive core benefits have a significantly raised probability of supporting Leave compared to those receiving none. [...] In addition, people dissatisfied with health and income have a higher probability of supporting Leave by 5.5% and 6.4%, respectively."

Otherwise stated (in the Daily Mail style): "Shock finding: Benefits scroungers support Leave."

################################################## ###################
Publication: "Who voted for Brexit? A comprehensive district-level analysis"
https://academic.oup.com/economicpol...92/601/4459491

Notable quote (p1)
"We analyse vote and turnout shares across 380 local authority areas in the United Kingdom. We find that exposure to the EU in terms of immigration and trade provides relatively little explanatory power for the referendum vote.

Instead, we find that fundamental characteristics of the voting population were key drivers of the Vote Leave share, in particular their education profiles, their historical dependence on manufacturing employment as well as low income and high unemployment. At the much finer level of wards within cities, we find that areas with deprivation in terms of education, income and employment were more likely to vote Leave."

Notable quote (p26):
"The well-established literature studying the economic implications of migration on labour market outcomes supports the notion that there are distributional consequences of low-skilled migration putting pressure on wages for low-skilled natives [...]. Migration from Eastern Europe, predominantly of low-skilled workers, affected areas with a lower-skilled resident population. As we will see below, low skills correlate with a larger Vote Leave share."

I don't deny the obvious selection bias in my choice of quotes, but of course all readers are free to delve into those publications and draw their own conclusions (I also admit that I have not studied either document from cover to cover). That said, I find the above quite interesting with respect to the supposed 'meeting of minds' between the likes of Rees-Mogg/Johnson (and other members of the well-heeled 'Elite') and the general population.

As far as I can tell, there are all sorts of reasons that the very-wealthy should wish to exit the EU, to form a 'free-fire' economic zone, but suspect that those reasons are wholly unrelated to the concerns of the far greater number of citizens who have not done so well out of the liberalisation of pretty much everything over the last 30+ years, largely - but not exclusively - thanks to the Tories.

Given that we live (ostensibly) in a democracy, the elites' problem was simple: given their numerical inferiority, how to garner enough referendum votes to break free from the constraints of current (and future) EU legislation which might constrain their 'wealth-creation' (for which, read: "Tax Avoidance") opportunities?

Their answer would appear to be to convince those cited above to vote naively in favour of Leave, by convincing them that their parochial (but very real) problems would be solved by abstracting the entire nation away from a distant and unaccountable bureaucracy, under the fear that things would only get worse for them if they didn't. Frankly who's to blame the vast number of people who did so?

What's missing from the whole discussion is some fairly simple, but important, questions. For example, if "low-skilled" immigrants threaten "lower-skilled" indigenous workers, then 1) why are our workers so unskilled; and 2) exactly how will leaving the EU upskill those indigenous workers?

History is plagued by mischaracterisations and Machiavellian mistruths; this is just the most recent.

Turkeys voting for Christmas.


Cheers,
auto

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	John William
	Leaked government Brexit papers confirm Labour and Trade Unionists worst fears of Tory plans to dilute workers rights in the UK after Brexit.

When challenged on workers' rights the other day, the PM made a point of saying the UK will have workers' rights way above what the EU state. Thing is, we always have had. The EU only sets minimum reqirements, leaving each member state completely free to set their own levels above that minimum.

Even so, the UK has long been behind Hungary with regards to maternity pay and leave, though that was largely down to their government policy to tackle the falling birthrate, but now it's Estonia that offers the best maternity leave.
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...-a8956731.html

The UK also has the longest working week, and opposed to Greece which has the longest working hours.
https://www.lexology.com/library/det...3-523daf192c4a

Something to really look out for is minimum annual leave seeing as the EU minimum is 4 weeks paid leave, yet all annula leave in the US is at the discretion of the employer and not defined in law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ave_by_country

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	Blueangel
	When challenged on workers' rights the other day, the PM made a point of saying the UK will have workers' rights way above what the EU state. Thing is, we always have had. The EU only sets minimum reqirements, leaving each member state completely free to set their own levels above that minimum.

So after BREXIT, the current plan is to have zero tariffs on most imports and in accordance with WTO rules that will apply to all members... materials and infrastructure costs will not change, so which one will come under pressure with competition from low cost imports???

After BREXIT, the UK will loose preferential access to a rich market accounting for 48% of its exports and will become a third country competing with other third countries, many with much lower cost structures, so guess which cost factor is going to take the hit....

The typical BREXITEERS are about to get screwed by the man, big time... Labour’s socialist republic might just have a small chance in the next 10 years or so....

[greenmount]

From Blueangel's links

	Quote:
	EU employment law protects the rights of workers across the EU. However, these laws often operate differently in different member states as most EU employment law is created at EU level and is then brought into national law by each member state Areas covered by EU law include: Working time, part-time and fixed-term work Protection from discrimination, the protection of pregnant workers and equal pay rights Informing and consulting workers on workplace issues, including collective redundancies and business transfers Protection of employees' rights on a business transfer Protection of personal data

Yep, I'm super OK with that.

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:	Urs Max
	How much is due if they live domestically? Let's say we both reside in London and are fully taxed by the UK. You give £1mln to me, how much tax is due on that, and when?

Well on the disposal of an asset there is a CGT charge, that would be 28% on residual property.

A property with a 1982 Value of £ 250,000
That property today it's market value £4,250,000

CGT payable on disposal of a gift of the house £1,120.000
IHT Payable if death occurs in sat 18 months £1,700,000

IHT payable if death occurs in 10 years time £0

Just give it to the kids they say, not realising there is a CGT charge on disposals given away.

Relationship has zero effect on tax payable except Husband & Wife assuming the are both UK Domiciled. (Domicile in the UK sense, not where you live)

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:
	Oh FMF... Had the Grosvenor estate bequeathed to the new Duke of Westminster been liable for 40% inheritance tax, the amount owed to the Treasury would have been not far off the government’s entire death duty take for the last financial year. Hugh Grosvenor, however, avoids a significant cut to his £9bn inheritance because the estate is held in a trust. Britain’s generous trust law ensures that the country’s largest fortunes are largely kept intact. This is borne out by statistics which show that duties are a modest source of revenue for the Treasury. HMRC collected total tax of £534bn in 2015-16, of which inheritance tax receipts represented £4.7bn. You were saying?

You have to realise that the government did this deal, in doing so they will get more money.
1)As you probably know IHT needs to be paid before any assets are sold. Good luck finding a Bank to advance £4 billion unsecured to pay a tax bill.
2) Fire selling £4 billion of property in a very small area would probably yield £1 billion, possibly less.

Property is an illiquid asset, a valuation is a guess a sale is a fact. This would be a Neil Woodford situation, Price discovery can be a very rude awakening, HMRC know this & did a deal where they can be paid without collapsing the value of the assets being taxed.

Sounds to me like the aristocracy is shafting the working man.

What is to be done with them?

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	You have to realise that the government did this deal, in doing so they will get more money. 1)As you probably know IHT needs to be paid before any assets are sold. Good luck finding a Bank to advance £4 billion unsecured to pay a tax bill. 2) Fire selling £4 billion of property in a very small area would probably yield £1 billion, possibly less. Property is an illiquid asset, a valuation is a guess a sale is a fact. This would be a Neil Woodford situation, Price discovery can be a very rude awakening, HMRC know this & did a deal where they can be paid without collapsing the value of the assets being taxed.

So one rule for the mega rich, and another for Joe Schmo. Isn't that what I've been saying all along and you've been denying?

Why would any assets have to be sold incidentally? Easy enough to get them valued and Mr Taxman takes 40% of the title deeds. Job done.

Wonder what will happen if our folks are unable to get their properties shifted - do you think the taxman will cut us a deal?

[22 yards]

	Quote:
	Sounds to me like the aristocracy is shafting the working man. What is to be done with them?

Let them distribute cake.

Followed by the historical consequences.

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:
	So one rule for the mega rich, and another for Joe Schmo. Isn't that what I've been saying all along and you've been denying? Why would any assets have to be sold incidentally? Easy enough to get them valued and Mr Taxman takes 40% of the title deeds. Job done. Wonder what will happen if our folks are unable to get their properties shifted - do you think the taxman will cut us a deal?

HMRC does not want to be a landlord, the law does not allow for that. The trust has to pay CGT on the sales needed to pay the 6% of value every 10 years, so HMRC ends up with a lot more than 6% as a result.

The other thing to remember, is the assets belong to the trust, he only has a life interest in the income, he can’t sell a house & pocket the cash.

	Quote:
	Sounds to me like the aristocracy is shafting the working man. What is to be done with them?

The working men? They get layered at the bottom, horizontal-like, in a big bowl and the sherry custard goes on top. When that's cooled down you add the whipped cream. Decorate as you will.

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:
	The working men? They get layered at the bottom, horizontal-like, in a big bowl and the sherry custard goes on top. When that's cooled down you add the whipped cream. Decorate as you will.

You won't get rich by having a job, you need to start a business, take a risk & most importantly live below your means so you can invest your earnings.

Investing $5,000 (£2,000 / 40 years ago in Berkshire Hathaway would be worth $8.5 million today. So next time you buy a new car just think how much you could have by investing the money instead.

[bowlie]

So we are going to have an election. The polls suggest that the Conservatives would regain their majority.

But the Conservatives can never agree amongst themselves how to exit the EU.

Conservatives would never agree to a second referendum ...

This will never, never end !

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	You won't get rich by having a job, you need to start a business, take a risk & most importantly live below your means so you can invest your earnings. Investing $5,000 (£2,000 / 40 years ago in Berkshire Hathaway would be worth $8.5 million today. So next time you buy a new car just think how much you could have by investing the money instead.

Eh? I was talking about mere trifles.

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	Investing $5,000 (£2,000 / 40 years ago in Berkshire Hathaway would be worth $8.5 million today. So next time you buy a new car just think how much you could have by investing the money instead.

2000 quid 40 years ago? Are you sure?

Never mind a car, 2000 quid would have bought best part of a house back then. Who could afford to shell that out on an investment whim?

	Quote:
	Eh? I was talking about mere trifles.

Trifles or rifles?

We need to do our best to help the poor money-making rich elite.

	Quote:
	2000 quid 40 years ago? Are you sure? Never mind a car, 2000 quid would have bought best part of a house back then. Who could afford to shell that out on an investment whim?

This. My parents bought (well got a mortgage for) their first house in 1972. It cost £2340.

[greenmount]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	You won't get rich by having a job, you need to start a business, take a risk & most importantly live below your means so you can invest your earnings. Investing $5,000 (£2,000 / 40 years ago in Berkshire Hathaway would be worth $8.5 million today. So next time you buy a new car just think how much you could have by investing the money instead.

Most people I know only want to have a decent living, not to get rich. When my mom decided she wanted to open her own company it was after decades of being in that profession and was very confident she'll succeed - she's an accountant and has an accounting firm. She didn't get rich, but worked for herself and not for ungrateful, shy of paying an awful lot of extra hours ****heads anymore. People have different reasons.

I have read a study made back home on what the new generations take into consideration the most when applying for a job. Surprisingly, it is not the money anymore, there are other things - job satisfaction, atmosphere, working conditions, things like that. Of course, the younger ones have no idea yet they'll have to pay a mortgage and stuff like that....would like that study to be repeated on the same sample group in a few more years. Says the cynical in me.

I actually think that opening your business shouldn't have the "get rich, make loads of money" as a central motivator.
And please give me a break with "investing". Investing in what, so that I lose hard earned money at the mercy of some speculators? No sir, open a business with an idea to actually do something and enjoy yourself in the process.