Boycott Picturehouse?

[Duvaller]

rendelharris Wrote:

>

> So in your mind there's no middle ground between a

> complete free-for-all where employers can pay

> exactly what they want even if it means people can

> only afford to live in slum conditions

> and...communism. Interesting.

You are extrapolating a tad too much. I was just saying how I had found it during my career.

The fact that hundreds of thousands migrate to the UK every year for work suggests that the current system ain't all that bad. Many of these folks make good and good on them for making the best of the opportunity. They work hard and don't complain.

[rendelharris]

Duvaller Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The fact that hundreds of thousands migrate to the

> UK every year for work suggests that the current

> system ain't all that bad. Many of these folks

> make good and good on them for making the best of

> the opportunity. They work hard and don't

> complain.

Many of those people migrating here to work do so because conditions in their own countries are so poor that working here enables them to provide a better life for their families back home. The fact that Britain has better wages compared to Lithuania (average monthly salary around ?530) is not, in my opinion, much to be proud of.

[Jules-and-Boo]

they work hard and don't complain because they often are replaceable.

my friend asked for extra hours - so they said he could work the same hours over six days instead of five days. When he asked for a Saturday off, they told him to not come back.

he now works seven days a week to get a decent amount of money each week...it's actually heartbreaking.

[Green Goose]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Duvaller Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > The fact that hundreds of thousands migrate to

> the UK every year for work suggests that the

> current system ain't all that bad. Many of these folks

> make good and good on them for making the best

> of the opportunity. They work hard and don't

> complain.

rendelharris Wrote:

> Many of those people migrating here to work do so

> because conditions in their own countries are so

> poor that working here enables them to provide a

> better life for their families back home.

That's right! You may have seen the light. Agreed, they remit the money they earn to their native countries. The reality is that this is a drain on the UK balance of payments which in turns adversely affects the exchange rate.

This remitted money is also a loss to the UK as it is not recirculated within our economy - a double negative.

Back in the 50's and 60's we had exchange control which restricted remittances to protect the economy - but probably you were not aware of that.

Now we have a proliferation of Western Union franchises that export that wealth of our country to build villas all the way from Lithuania, Pakistan and Nigeria.

[JoeLeg]

GG - you've just argued yourself into a corner.

Can you work out how?

[Green Goose]

Quite obviously LoeLeg, you really havn't grasped the basic realities of a free market in employment situation.

This and your earlier posts confirm that. You must live in a Socialist dream land. Enjoy.

GG

[JoeLeg]

Green Goose Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Quite obviously LoeLeg, you really havn't grasped

> the basic realities of a free market in employment

> situation.

>

> This and your earlier posts confirm that. You must

> live in a Socialist dream land. Enjoy.

>

> GG

You can dish it out but you just can't take it, can you? Hilarious!

[Administrator]

This is no longer about East Dulwich so I'm moving it to the Lounge

[Beej]

-- moved topic --

[JohnL]

Green Goose Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rendelharris Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Duvaller Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> >

> > > The fact that hundreds of thousands migrate

> to

> > the UK every year for work suggests that the

> > current system ain't all that bad. Many of these

> folks

> > make good and good on them for making the best

> > of the opportunity. They work hard and don't

> > complain.

> rendelharris Wrote:

> > Many of those people migrating here to work do

> so

> > because conditions in their own countries are

> so

> > poor that working here enables them to provide

> a

> > better life for their families back home.

>

> That's right! You may have seen the light. Agreed,

> they remit the money they earn to their native

> countries. The reality is that this is a drain on

> the UK balance of payments which in turns

> adversely affects the exchange rate.

>

> This remitted money is also a loss to the UK as it

> is not recirculated within our economy - a double

> negative.

>

> Back in the 50's and 60's we had exchange control

> which restricted remittances to protect the

> economy - but probably you were not aware of that.

>

>

> Now we have a proliferation of Western Union

> franchises that export that wealth of our country

> to build villas all the way from Lithuania,

> Pakistan and Nigeria.

What on Earth

How much money comes into the UK from Russia, China, USA, India, EU etc.

Housing, Company takeovers, Nissan, Steel, even to support Manchester United in buying players

Other countries can put in exchange controls too you know.

[Mick Mac]

I thought exchange controls were to limit fluctuations in currency rather than the flow of money.

Balance of payments is imports v exports, not flows of cash I thought?

If someone earns money in this country, as long as they pay tax on those earnings, they should be entitled to do what they want with it after that.

[Duvaller]

JohnL Wrote:

>

> How much money comes into the UK from Russia,

> China, USA, India, EU etc.

> Housing, Company takeovers, Nissan, Steel, even to

> support Manchester United in buying players

>

OK, you have extended the arguement from personal remittances to foreign business capital inflows -euphemistically called Inward Investment.

Fine, and there are a many similarities between them both.

Let's start with the foreign corporates. They send the money to the UK to buy out the UK share holders (eg Kraft bought Cadburys or Softbank bought ARM) so that the foreign investor now owns 100% of the equity in the UK based company. Having done this, they can now load that UK company with expensive debt from an off-shore bank (in say the Cayman Islands). That way they can minimise or even eliminate any profits arising from the UK business. The cost of servicing the debt gets stashed in the off-shore tax haven.

As a ManUtd supporter, I feel particularly agreived as the Glazers heaped massive debts on the club ( which previously had mountains of cash). The Glazers took all that the cash out and part pay off their initial debt. The additional debt imposed on the club now has to be serviced and that ends up off shore as interest payments. The UK Treasury doesn't get a look in as there is no profit registered in the UK beacuse debt interest is trated as a cost. There is a double whammy because the original UK shareholders who previously paid tax on ther dividends to HMRC, no longerr hold these shares.

Virtually all countries have "National Interest" legislation which prevents certain take-overs and prevent siphoning off profits to avoid domestic taxation. Sadly the UK does not have this.

This ploy yhas been exploited on a massive scale by those foreign companies, and funds ( Canadian Teachers Pension Funds) through the take over of virtually all the UK utility companies. Look at who owns Thames Water and the others. Here are a few of the proud brand names and UK companies that have been the victims of so-called inward investment:-

Cadbury, ARM (computer chips), Land Rover, Jaguar, MG, Crosse & Blackwell, Leyland Trucks, Blue Circle Cement, Coventry Climax, Perkins, SABMiller (brewing), Scottish & Newcastle, Tetley, Rolls Royce Cars, Bently, Camelot, Weetabix, Brooke Bond, Branston, British Airports, British Ports, Bond, 75% of all the bus operating companies, 80% of all the water copnies, 90% of all the electricity suppliers, Robertsons (Jam), Gales Honey, Boots, Raleigh, Asda, Thames Water, Colemans, Harrods, House of Fraser, Walkers Crisps, Hartleys Jam, Lotus, Wiseman Dairies, Typhoo, Terrys Chocolate, Bass, beefeater, Chivas Regal Glenlivet, O2, EE, The Times, Hamleys,Umbro, ManUtd, Ribena, Lucozade, McVities and many more.

An interesting recent news item was that Nestle is about to off-shore production of Blue Riband biscuits from the UK to Poland. Nestle bought out Rowntree in the UK some years ago. and Rowntree s factory made Blue Riband. The UK is still the biggest market for Blue Riband. Despite this, the product will now be made in Poland and exported to the UK. Result = loss of jobs and a negative impact on the balance of payments.

The other massive drain on our economy is what Ebay, Amazon, Google, Apple, and the others do. The sales they make in the UK are not invoiced in the UK but are invoiced in say in Luxemberg or Dublin where they have agreed special tax arrangements. That way they do not register UK sales or profits. What little revenue they do declare in the UK, they minimise further by charging royalties. Another of the worst offenders is Starbucks.

A variation on this is the "Double Irish" This relies on the fact that Irish tax law does not include transfer pricing rules as does the United States[1] and those of many other jurisdictions. Specifically, Ireland has territorial taxation, and does not levy taxes on income booked in subsidiaries of Irish companies that are outside the state. It is called double Irish because two Irish companies are used in the arrangement. One of these companies is tax resident in a tax haven, such as the Cayman Islands or Bermuda. Irish tax law currently provides that a company is tax resident where its central management and control is located, not where it is incorporated

Reading the Times today, we learn that Apple has an accumulated cash pile off-shore of 610 Billion Dollars! That is more that 4 times the UK's foreign currency reserves. and 5 times the entire market capitalisation of either HSBC or British American Tobacco.

So when a politician brags about foreign inward investment to the UK, just stop and consider what really is going on. The reality is an ever decreasing taxation base and foreign transaction deficit in the mediun to long term.

So when you say look at """ How much money comes into the UK from Russia, China, USA, India, EU etc. """, take a look at the under-lying detail, the reality is entirely different.

Now to go back to personal remittances, the similarity with the corporates is with the initial investment on getting to the UK. Say your average illegal immigrant from say Pakistan or India takes on debt/obligation of around ?8,000 to a trafficker to get them into the UK, they have to pay off that debt from the money they earn in the UK. That's where Western Union comes in. That is the conduit.

Whether corporate or personal, both systems work on borrowed funding that has to be remitted off-shore.

[Duvaller]

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I thought exchange controls were to limit

> fluctuations in currency rather than the flow of

> money.

>

> Balance of payments is imports v exports, not

> flows of cash I thought?

The most common reason for having exchange controls is to eliminate or restrict the out-flow of currency ( whether its a hard or soft currency) from a particular country.

The UK had severe exchange controls for several years after WW2 as the economy was in dire straights. Prior to 1979, fixed exchange rates prevailed. To maintain a stable exchange rate in these circumstances it becomes imperative for that government to achieve fiscal credibility ( ie balance the annual budget). It is also necessary to maintain balance of payments equilibrium.

The classic failure of these responsibilities was with the Labour Govt of Harold Wilson which ran a budget deficit that ballooned year after year. Investors became convinced that the pound was overvalued and that the government would have to devalue. A large-scale sale of sterling began, which rapidly lost value against the dollar.

In 1976 the UK govt had to go to the IMF and borrow $3.9Bn so that it could pay off foreign debts. It was the largest amount ever handed out by the IMF up to that time. Under pressure from the IMF, Sterling was massively devalued. This mismanagement of the UK finances was the reason that voters abandoned Labour and brought in 20 years of Tory rule.

Thather abolished exchange controls immediately after taking office in 1979 so the money markets settled the exchange rate on an on-going basis so avoiding huge devaluations. Under this regime, any fiscal irresponsibility is punished by a steady decline in the Sterling exchange rate.

Now turn the clock forward to Gordon Brown's era. He started blowing the budget after he became PM. He saw the size of the state soar from 37pc to 50pc ? a rise of 13 points. This was a faster rise than any other advanced country, over any other postwar decade.

Brown started to forcefeed the state like a foie gras goose, but couldn?t squeeze enough tax from the country. So his splurge was financed by debt. Brown stood out from every other global finance minister in borrowing like crazy, during the boom. Prudence went out the window. So UK finances were in a precarious state when the global crash struck in 2007/8.

Sadly, every single Labour government we have ever had ? from Ramsay MacDonald to Gordon Brown ? has left an economic mess behind them. Brown was the worst of the lot. We are still paying for his profligacy and will be for generations to come.

Fiscal irresponsibility results in Labour getting kicked out and Tories getting elected. The Tories repair the economy by imposing austerity but become unpopular in doing so. Labour is re-elected and wrecks it all over again.

I fear it is a cycle that will be repeated.

>

> If someone earns money in this country, as long as

> they pay tax on those earnings, they should be

> entitled to do what they want with it after that.

Your keys words here are ""as long as they pay tax on those earnings"". The reality is that the corporates and some individuals do not pay their tax obligations.

Further reading...

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinetpapers/themes/sterling-devalued-imf-loan.htm

https://www.psa.ac.uk/sites/default/files/conference/papers/2016/Removal%20of%20exchange%20control%20by%20the%20Thatcher%20Government_0.pdf

Edited to add links

[rendelharris]

Duvalier Wrote:

> Now we have a proliferation of Western Union

> franchises that export that wealth of our country

> to build villas all the way from Lithuania,

> Pakistan and Nigeria.

Then

> Now to go back to personal remittances, the

> similarity with the corporates is with the initial

> investment on getting to the UK. Say your average

> illegal immigrant from say Pakistan or India

> takes on debt/obligation of around ?8,000 to a

> trafficker to get them into the UK, they have to

> pay off that debt from the money they earn in

> the UK. That's where Western Union comes in.

> That is the conduit.

Why did you include Lithuania? Lithuania is a member of the EU and hence nobody from that country working here is an illegal immigrant. Further, why did you start on about illegal immigrants at all? You said:

> > The fact that hundreds of thousands migrate to

> the UK every year for work suggests that the

> current system ain't all that bad. Many of these folks

> make good and good on them for making the best

> of the opportunity. They work hard and don't

> complain.

Presumably you were mainly referring to legal immigrants there, as there are nothing like "hundreds of thousands" of illegal immigrants each year - indeed you seem to be approving of them for their willingness to work hard for a pittance. Then suddenly you start banging on about illegal immigrants who are sending all their money back to people traffickers and how they are a drag on the British economy. All seems somewhat confused.

By the way even if all the illegal immigrants in this country were sending back ?8000 a year (which obviously they're not as many are children, elderly, unemployed etc) it would come to 0.16% of our GDP going missing, so I hardly think it's a serious drain on the economy.

[Duvaller]

Duvalier Wrote:

>>> Now we have a proliferation of Western Union

>>> franchises that export that wealth of our country

>>> to build villas all the way from Lithuania,

>>> Pakistan and Nigeria.

Rendelharris wrote:

>>Why did you include Lithuania? Lithuania is a member of the EU and hence nobody from that country >>working here is an illegal immigrant.

Duvaller Wrote:

I did not state or even imply that workers from Lithuania were illegal immigrants. You inferred it in your eagerness to respond.

>>> The fact that hundreds of thousands migrate to

>>> the UK every year for work suggests that the

>>> current system ain't all that bad. Many of these folks

> >>make good and good on them for making the best

>>> of the opportunity. They work hard and don't

>>> complain.

>Presumably you were mainly referring to legal immigrants there, as there are nothing like "hundreds of >thousands" of >illegal immigrants each year - indeed you seem to be approving of them for their willingness to >work hard for a >pittance.

Here again you make an incorrect presumption. The consistent theme of my argument has been that people come to this country and do not whinge about the low wages like the EDPH Staff poster person.

>Then suddenly you start banging on about illegal immigrants who are sending all their money back to people

>traffickers and how they are a drag on the British economy.

They have to repay the traffickers and that is money drained out of our economy.

>By the way even if all the illegal immigrants in this country were sending back ?8000 a year (which >obviously they're >not as many are children, elderly, unemployed etc) it would come to 0.16% of our GDP >going missing.

Kindly explain how you arrive at 0.16% of GDP. What is the source of your data?

You said ??which obviously they're not as many are children, elderly, unemployed etc??.

These, in reality, are the ones who are a burden on the education system, the NHS and the benefits system respectively. This is part of the baggage that comes with the migrants.

[JoeLeg]

"Here again you make an incorrect presumption. The consistent theme of my argument has been that people come to this country and do not whinge about the low wages like the EDPH Staff poster person."

Anyone who bothers to waste their time reading my old posts will know that I personally value immigrants as workers, because in my field they tend to be far more efficient and committed than young British people who tend to buckle as soon as the realities of the industry are clear to them. I appreciate it is a view from my own personal point and not a reflection of wider society (though anecdotal evidence leads me to think it's more widespread than it should be).

However, even conceding that I'm biased in favour of immigrants and have a low opinion of 'locally grown' candidates (born of many years of experience), and agreeing that PH staff aren't exactly working an horrendous job like digging stone of cleaning asbestos, why does this mean that they shouldn't be allowed to campaign for LLW?

I'm still mystified as to way people think that either we shouldn't listen to them because of the job they do, or that we shouldn't countenance the idea of LLW? I don't want to end up finding it difficult to recruit because cost of living has outstripped wages on London and people have gone elsewhere. And I think that's a real danger. We have no idea what the future holds, so why not start talking about ways we can keep ourselves competitive?

I've been hilariously accused of being some kind of socialist, but actually I see money as the key to this. People work for money, and work hard for good money (or they get fired). Money is the prime motivator. Pay them well and you have a better workforce, generally. I think we need the debate in this town, and I'm glad PH have started it. What happens to them is up to them and Cineworld, but I'm glad it's happening.

[rendelharris]

Duvalier:

Let's take a massive over estimate and say there are 500,000 illegal immigrants currently residing in the UK and earning wages, all of whom are sending back ?8000 to people traffickers. 500,000 x ?8000 = ?4BN: UK GDP = ?2.2 trillion

4000000000/2200000000000 = 0.018 x 100 = 0.18%

[Duvaller]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Duvalier:

>

> Let's take a massive over estimate and say there

> are 500,000 illegal immigrants currently residing

> in the UK and earning wages, all of whom are

> sending back ?8000 to people traffickers. 500,000

> x ?8000 = ?4BN: UK GDP = ?2.2 trillion

>

> 4000000000/2200000000000 = 0.018 x 100 = 0.18%

OK, for the sake of simplicity, I will take your ?4Bn as an estimated cash outflow but instead of comparing it with GDP, let's compare it to the balance of trade/services. This is running at around ?40Bn per annum. So the outflow then equates to 10% of the deficit.

It impacts the trade deficit which in turn adversley influences the exchange rate of Sterling ie weakens the Pound. Furthermore it is negative investment ie loss of capital to the UK economy.

As for the number of 500,000 immigrants, I think that is modest if you estimate the aggregate numbers from say the last 20 years. I have seen estimates of this at around 4.5 million. So 10% of GDP is an under estimation.

[rendelharris]

A) I said 500,000 working and earning, not total. Even the rabidly rightwing anti-immigrant MigrationWatch only estimates 1.1M - are you seriously suggesting that there are 4 million illegal immigrants in the UK?

B) I was just taking your arbitrary figure of ?8K and pointing out what it would mean if everyone was paying this to people traffickers. Obviously it's a figure you've just plucked out of the air, but even if it were true (which it isn't) that would be a one-off payment, not year on year.

C) Are you seriously suggesting that illegal immigration is responsible for more than 10% (in fact if you take your figure of 4.5M, it'd be about 80%) of the UK's balance of payments deficit? If so please offer some figures in justification (I mean real figures, not something you've made up about every Pakistani paying ?8000 to a people trafficker to get here).

[JohnL]

I can't get involved in the finances but... surely we're a big enough country that we can cope with a few people sending money home to their family and Duvaller - I'm sure Gordon Brown reduced the deficit until the bankers decided to f**k up ;)

By the way - this money is apparently called remittances and many see them as a good thing - better than aid

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/jun/16/remittances-mainstay-millions-worlds-poor-improve-them-dipti-pardeshi

[Duvaller]

According to the World Bank Bilateral Remittances Matrix the estimated remittances from the UK by migrants is ?16.5 Bn with the biggest recipient countries being Nigeria and India.

I trust you will accept the World Bank's figures.

[JohnL]

Duvaller Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> According to the World Bank Bilateral Remittances

> Matrix the estimated remittances from the UK by

> migrants is ?16.5 Bn with the biggest recipient

> countries being Nigeria and India.

>

> I trust you will accept the World Bank's figures.

I'd accept that figure and as the Guardian is obviously Pro

I found a Mail article from 2013 with a little map and arrows.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2271320/How-migrants-sending-335BILLION-struggling-families-home--times-worlds-total-aid-budget.html

But I still wouldn't support stopping this (it's still

money they have earned IMHO).

[rendelharris]

Duvaller Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> According to the World Bank Bilateral Remittances

> Matrix the estimated remittances from the UK by

> migrants is ?16.5 Bn with the biggest recipient

> countries being Nigeria and India.

>

> I trust you will accept the World Bank's figures.

That's migrants, you were bizarrely banging on about illegal immigrants having to pay their people traffickers. And that sum, large as it is, is still a drop in the ocean (approximately 0.06%) of our GDP, so the contention that migrants sending money home has any serious effect on our economy still does not hold water.

ETA and you need to be a bit careful bandying figures about so confidently: as this Oxford University report notes, different arms of the World Bank give different estimates for UK remittance outflow, ranging from 1.5BN through 7BN to your 16.5BN. Not, maybe, as reliable as you'd like to believe. http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migrant-remittances-to-and-from-the-uk/

[Duvaller]

I will respect your obvious sensitivity on matters relating to migration (whether illegal or not) but in return I would ask you to note carefully where I make comments about migrants and illegal immigrants. I dont "bang on" the latter and I have given you and other readrs detailled information and statistics about both in the context of remittances and other areas.

If I may say, you seem to keep rcomparing remittances to GDP. This is inappropriate as remittances are essentially the flow of currency out of the UK. Aggregate remittances therefor are best related to the balance of payments/services.

[rendelharris]

I don't have an "obvious sensitivity" on immigration matters (a stupid and tasteless remark), I just don't like pointless inappropriate immigrant scapegoating such as you and others on here enjoy. As noted above your "detailed information" is disputed even within the organisations which provide the figures. This issue of remittances is a minor side issue which you and others have leapt on to portray immigration in a negative light - there are 8.7 million foreign born people in the UK, do you think their labour, taxes, expertise and contribution to society might outweigh the fact that some of them send money back home occasionally?