Home » Posts tagged 'Britain'
Tag Archives: Britain
Yes folks, it really does take that many people to build a McLaren supercar!
In fact, it takes many thousands of people combining forces to build any car, aircraft, or other modern and/or technologically advanced vehicle.
And the point of this blog post is to show that the UK can add one million manufacturing jobs in the automotive sector alone, just by adopting the right policies — policies that help foreign automakers become ‘part of the solution instead of part of the problem.’
So, please bear with me while I show you how the UK could emerge a winner in the post-Brexit timeframe, create millions of homegrown jobs, boost the economy like never before, and supercharge UK manufacturing exports.
If you like the sound of that, then you’re a British patriot and you want the best for your country. I salute you!
(If you’re a foreign car manufacturer, don’t panic, it’ll work out for you too in the post-Brexit era. Just keep reading ’til the end)
UK Slaps a £25,000 Tariff on any Car or Truck (New or Used) That’s Imported After Brexit
WOW! That got your attention, didn’t it?
It’s not as bad as it sounds, because every auto manufacturer would be invited to establish their headquarters for all Commonwealth of Nations countries (and this blogger suggests) that the UK government should provide brand-new, free-of-charge, turnkey factories to every auto manufacturer that wants to build cars and trucks in the UK and sell them to every Commonwealth of Nations country including the UK, sans tariffs, simply by manufacturing those vehicles in the UK.
Remember, The Commonwealth comprises 53 countries with a combined population of 2.5 billion people by 2020 and a combined GDP that nearly matches the U.S.A.
The UK alone, is the 5th-largest economy in the world by GDP (6th by PPP) and India is the 6th-largest economy in the world by GDP (5th by PPP) and other countries in the Commonwealth include Canada (10th) Australia (13th) Nigeria (30th) South Africa (33rd) and Pakistan (40th) and many others whose economies are rocketing upwards in this young century.
Nigeria alone will have more citizens than the United States by 2060. Maybe sooner.
How many auto manufacturers want enhanced access to 2.5 billion consumers, most of whom live in rapidly growing economies with upward disposable income?
The Commonwealth consumers not living in those burgeoning economies live in developed nations with high per capita incomes like the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore.
Brand-new, ‘build to suit’ factories, paid for and owned by the UK government, leased to each manufacturer for £1 per year — with the benefit of zero UK or Commonwealth tariffs for those auto manufacturers, and streamlined access to 2.5 billion Commonwealth of Nations consumers.
If you’re a global auto manufacturer, you can’t lose!
Why Would Commonwealth Nations Agree to This Plan?
The UK unemployment rate is low at present, and falling each year.
In 2019, the UK unemployment rate sits at 3.8% and you’ll remember from your economics class that 2.5% unemployment is functionally a 0% unemployment rate — as exactly that many people are in some kind of transitory employment state without being actually unemployed.
Which means the UK is 1.3% away from zero functional unemployment even with all the Brexit uncertainty due to the overly-long negotiating period. (3.8% – 2.5% = 1.3%)
Q: In the immediate Post-Brexit era and assuming a (functional) 0% unemployment rate in the UK, who will the UK call-on to fill perhaps a million new manufacturing jobs?
A: The Commonwealth of Nations countries, that’s who.
And that’s the benefit of being a member of a large and diverse bloc such as the Commonwealth. For the UK, membership in that group means a huge pool of highly motivated workers ready to jump on a plane and begin working in the UK immediately.
For Commonwealth countries, it means hundreds of thousands of their young people will have good paying jobs waiting for them in the UK at the end of their schooling, and good kids will send some money home to Mom and Dad — who after all, probably paid for their child’s entire education and the airfare to the UK.
Workers who show up on-time and do a good job will of course be invited to stay on where the manufacturing continues year ’round, or find themselves invited to return to the UK by their company at the beginning of the next production cycle.
For the UK, this plan would reduce UK unemployment to zero, then allow any additional labour to be sourced from Commonwealth of Nations countries.
For foreign auto manufacturers, this plan would provide a specially-built for them factory at a cost of £1 per year, and guarantee them no automotive tariffs in the UK and other Commonwealth of Nations countries.
Saving Money, Streamlining Production, Centralizing Administration
Let’s pretend at present that Ford Motor Company builds the F-150 pickup truck in different Commonwealth nations and earns low profit per vehicle because the sales numbers in each country don’t quite support one factory per country. And all of its vehicles are subject to a plethora of different tariffs and fees in the various Commonwealth countries, depending upon where those F-150’s are built and where Ford is shipping them. Very inefficient!
But if Ford decides to build all of its UK and Commonwealth-destined F-150’s in the UK, it means that one humongous factory in Britain could build all of them. There are economies of scale in that approach! And to have the land and building built and paid for by the UK government guarantees the economics work for Ford.
All Ford must decide is where in the UK it wants the factory, which car lines or trucks to build in the factory, and pay an annual £1 rent payment to the UK government.
And no automotive tariffs for Ford in any Commonwealth nation, including the UK. Ever!
But This is An Expensive Plan!
No, not really. Especially when you factor-in some of the possible alternatives.
Such as the entire auto manufacturing sector in the UK dying completely. Which is happening in slow-motion anyway. (Rolls-Royce, Bentley, JLR, Mini, Lotus, Triumph, MG, Rover cars, BSA motorcycles, etc. are almost gone, or already gone)
There go a million existing UK jobs! (For just one example of it going wrong) And there go the additional one million UK jobs I’ve proposed.
But if UK unemployment hits 0% in the UK as I expect AND if one million new auto manufacturing jobs are created via this proposal, that means (on average) each of those additional one million auto workers will pay an average £20,000. income tax annually, and thousands of pounds in other taxes on their discretionary spending because almost every time you buy something in the UK you pay some kind of tax on it. New house, new car, new baby pram, you get the idea.
What is one million times £20,000. anyway? That’s £20 billion annually in income tax revenue HM government isn’t presently earning.
It’s even better if those one million additional workers spend every pound sterling they earn on taxable items in the UK. Maybe twice as good as the calculation above shows.
- Check the math: 1,000,000 x £20,000. = £20,000,000,000. annual income tax revenue alone.
- Over 10-years, that equals £200 billion in tax revenue alone for HMG.
- Yes, some of the £200 billion would be spent to build turnkey factories over that decade, but nowhere near all of it.
Remember: This is Just One Example of Why Britons Shouldn’t be Shrinking Back from Brexit!
Whether we’re talking Volkswagen Golf, BMW 5 Series, Audi A8, or whatever car you want to buy in the UK — if they don’t build them in the UK after Brexit — each vehicle imported into the UK would be subject to a £25,000 tariff.
Because at present, those cars are built in the EU, by EU companies, by EU workers who pay EU income taxes, in EU-subsidized factories — and the UK is getting no benefit whatsoever — other than UK drivers are encouraged by slick advertising to hand over their hard earned money to EU car manufacturers.
However, if they build them in the UK — a no automobile tariff regime for those auto manufacturers would apply anywhere in the Commonwealth of Nations, under this proposal.
I posit that vehicles destined for the UK and Commonwealth market could and should be built in Britain, and by adopting better policies, UK manufacturing will succeed as never before!
Now that the UK has missed two ‘firm’ Brexit dates, the pressure’s on. And because Prime Minister Theresa May couldn’t get the job done (twice) doesn’t mean the world has stopped while Conservatives get their act together.
The world is moving-on, in case you didn’t notice the EU Parliament Election 2019 results.
How Time Flies!
One of the best things Theresa May did during her time as PM was to visit U.S. President Donald Trump early in his presidency and ask him to move Britain ‘to the front of the line’ in regards to Britain’s place in any future trade deal with the U.S.
You’ll recall that U.S. President Barack Obama famously said that ‘the UK will move to the back of the line’ regarding any trade deal with America — because Obama was the consummate globalist, and the EU his partner in compelling the UK to join their globalist plot to control much of the world’s trading system. Hey, it was worth a try! I’d have said the same thing were I the U.S. president to keep the EU, my (much larger than the UK) trading partner, happy.
But, sometimes: ‘Success’ has a shelf-life
As of today, President Donald Trump has 597-days left in his first term and if you believe the opinion polls, Joe Biden (corporatist, globalist, former Vice President under Barack Obama, and the present leading contender for the top job in the U.S.A.) might win the next U.S. election and could conceivably send Britain ‘to the back of the line’ in regards to any future trade deal with that gigantic economy.
The moment where the UK could’ve gotten a great trade deal with the U.S.A. will have passed, should Trump lose the next U.S. election!
And there’s the lollygagging of Theresa May dangling Brexit under everyone’s nose from July 16, 2016 until today (June 1, 2019) and any of those 3-years were the prime time to get Brexit done, a U.S. trade deal done, a CPTPP trade deal done, an EU trade deal done, a Commonwealth trade deal done, and an EFTA trade deal done.
Among many other important things. Too many to list here.
But no. Theresa May probably realized early-on that she wasn’t up to the task of Brexit and just decided to hang-on to power as long as possible. Very disappointing.
Lead, Follow, or Get Out of the Way!
The time for talking is over!
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again; If the ruling Conservatives don’t deliver Brexit by October 31, 2019 they’ll be unceremoniously booted from power by voters at the next General Election — and may not form a government for a full generation — or even two or three generations.
Politicians must deliver what they promise or they’ll be removed from power by the new generation of voters who want responsive and accountable politicians.
‘Talking about talking’ for months and years, is over!
In case you missed it in the last EU Parliament elections last week, voters aren’t going to tolerate mediocrity any longer. The gravy train is over, folks!
But if Conservatives get Brexit handled by November 1st (the new ‘firm’ Brexit date is October 31, 2019) I hope they’re ready for a lot more work. Because there’s a lot to do. Especially now that Brexit has been kicked down the road 3-times.
“The reward for doing good work, is the opportunity to do more.” — Dr. Jonas Salk
Going, Going, Gone!
Perhaps Conservative politicians aren’t aware of some of the items that will appear on their watch, so let’s inform them of these (already partially-missed) opportunities, and soon to be fully-missed opportunities.
“Don’t tell me what you can do, show me what you have done.” — Henry Ford
So, today is Day 1050 of Theresa May’s premiership and she has shown us, the EU, and the world, that she wasn’t the person to deliver Brexit. Standing up to EU elites for the rights of Britons just wasn’t her forte. No one can be everything, but standing up for Britons is an important job skill for a UK Prime Minister.
It’s plain to see that the governing Conservatives NEED A LEADER who can get Brexit done. So much of Britain’s future depends on getting Brexit out of the way — because, frankly, more important items than Brexit await.
And not one of them can be done until Brexit is done and dusted.
Brexit is Merely the Stepping Stone to a Better UK Future
Let’s do this exercise year by year, because in the best-case scenario each item on the following list would take the UK Parliament approximately one-year to accomplish. Which is depressing, because each of these items should take the UK Parliament 6-months at most.
If huge corporations can get big things done, if Malala can get big things done, and if little Greta Thunberg (age 16) can get big things done, then 650 UK Members of the House of Commons plus 800 Members of the House of Lords ought be able to get some big things done! (If not, let’s hire Malala and Greta to run the UK government!) You think I’m kidding, don’t you? Don’t you? (Hahaha!)
Let’s make a list (in no particular order) and let’s say that each item should take no more than one year to accomplish. And let’s also say that due to the 3-years of Brexit delays we’re already 3-years behind schedule. So, not a moment to waste!
- A free trade deal with America. Once Trump is gone, a U.S./UK free trade deal is gone too!
- A free trade deal with the CPTPP countries, the biggest trading bloc in the world once the UK leaves the EU, with member countries from three oceans.
- A CANZUK trade deal (Note: some CANZUK countries are also CPTPP signatories)
- A free trade deal with The Commonwealth of Nations (India alone, is the 5th-largest economy by PPP in the world)
- A free trade deal with the EU, and although the EU economy has fallen from 13% of global GDP and is expected to fall to 8% of GDP by 2025 it’s still relevant to the UK economy.
- A free trade deal with the EFTA countries, some of which have spoken privately about joining politically with the UK, after Brexit. (A strength-in-numbers equation)
- Northern Ireland belongs to the British Royal Family (Northern Ireland was purchased outright in 1800 by King George III with the King’s own money and granted to his niece) but with the best of intentions and after having spent billions (perhaps even a trillion pounds?) on it since the year 1800, it’s time to return that jurisdiction to the Republic of Ireland. There was a time for British involvement in Northern Ireland but that time is now past. However, such a transition cannot be done in the middle of a fractious Brexit situation, it must be done without undue delay following Brexit. Any UK citizens living in Northern Ireland at the time of the changeover should be compensated (and of course) given the opportunity to move house to England, Scotland or Wales.
- Many more countries are lining-up to join The Commonwealth and want trade deals with the UK, post-Brexit. (Think; AU nations that aren’t already Commonwealth members, some Middle East countries, some Atlantic-facing South American countries, as well as some Indian Ocean island nations that aren’t already Commonwealth members) Which should provide trade opportunities and easier access to certain tropical paradise islands for Britons.
- With Brexit out of the way, the UK can determine its own immigration policy and do as Canada does, which imports skilled immigrants to ‘fill holes in the system’ but only where a Canadian isn’t trained or available to do that particular job.
- With Brexit out of the way, the UK can re-write its agricultural and fishery regulations for the benefit of Britons — and not for the benefit of the ‘five dairy cows in France’ or the thousands of EU fishing boat owners who ply UK waters scooping up kabillions of fish every year.
Three-Years of Economic Uncertainty, But Only Because the UK had an Uncertain Prime Minister!
For 3-years Theresa May argued with herself, with her Conservative party, with opposition parties, and with the EU, in an attempt to deliver a Brexit Withdrawal Agreement, a Political Declaration, and a Joint Instrument (all of which weren’t on the June 23, 2016 referendum ballot) and in the end, just couldn’t get the job done.
“For if the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who shall prepare for battle?”
— 1 Corinthians 14:8
Not that it’s a military battle with the EU. Far from it.
But that point doesn’t make it any less an existential fight for the United Kingdom — as a foreign power (the EU) was (illegally, according to the UK’s constitutional documentation) handed some amount of UK sovereignty by British MP’s from a previous generation — and now, the EU (a foreign power and an economic competitor) continues to make the rules for the UK in many areas; Including labour law, fishery and agriculture regulations, European Court of Justice, Court of First Justice (now, General Court) and in other ways, UK sovereignty was given away for free to a foreign competitor power. Shameful.
Only in Britain could political leaders vote to give away the UK’s hard-won sovereignty, acting against the UK’s longstanding constitutional framework and pass it off to voters as ‘normal business’. It remains an unprecedented act in the history of free countries!
In countries like Canada, where the Constitution of the country was written in plain English expressly so that every citizen has the ability to easily understand it, such a thing would’ve never occurred.
Example: “The resources of Canada (underground, on the land, in the lakes, and in Canada’s territorial marine areas) are owned by the citizens of the country, and such resources are to be administered by the provinces on behalf of, and for the betterment of, the residents of each province.”
Pretty simple stuff. No loopholes there. And no citizen in Canada needs a constitutional scholar on hand to understand those simple and self-evident concepts.
But alas, there are 10 major things for UK politicians to accomplish first (post-Brexit) long before we can begin thinking about formalizing the UK’s constitutional framework and writing it out in plain English so every Briton can easily understand what belongs to the state and what belongs to individual Britons.
And based upon what we’ve seen since June 23, 2016, that’s probably a good thing.
How Many Billions of Pounds Sterling Have Been Lost in the UK Due to Economic Uncertainty Caused by the Overly-Extended Brexit Negotiating Process? (Which Ultimately Failed)
No one knows for sure, of course. And the organizations that do know aren’t going to publish those stats!
Will Philip Hammond the Remainer Exchequer admit that the overly-long Brexit negotiating process has cost the UK billions over the past 3-years? I doubt it.
How about the CBI, which receives millions in funding from the EU? I double-doubt it.
How about Remainers? Never.
So, we know there’s been a cost. Brexit could’ve been completed within a year and the uncertainty factor wouldn’t have lasted long, nor amounted to much. But those trying to quash the UK’s exit from the EU thought that if they kicked the can down the road long enough, the icky democratic referendum result would go away.
But it didn’t. In fact, voters came roaring back last week voting in the EU Parliament Election 2019 — and The Brexit Party (only weeks old!) sent 29 MEP’s to the EU Parliament — while the Conservatives lost 15-seats and are down to only 4 MEP’s. Labour retains the same number of seats (10) but with a smaller percentage of the popular vote.
Remainer politicians have cost the UK economy billions, but inexplicably, they think they’ll get re-elected at the next General Election!
IMHO, every obstructionist politician (anti-Brexit = anti-democratic) in the UK House of Commons will be tossed from power at the next General Election in no uncertain terms.
And astonishingly to some Remain MP’s — many of the people who will vote for The Brexit Party in the next General Election IMHO will be true British patriots who also happen to be Remainers — who’ve seen exactly what 3-years of uncertainty have done to the economy and that harm far and away surpasses the cost of any WTO-style Brexit!
Look What Came Across the Wires as I Finished Writing This Blog Post Today!
“According to a seat predictor by the Electoral Calculus website, the result would leave Farage 20 seats short of a majority, with 306 MPs. The Conservatives would be reduced to 26 MPs, suggesting they could be the minor party in a coalition with Farage.” — The Guardian
It’s a proven fact, men can’t bear children. Ask anyone.
Therefore, any children born in a country are going to be born to women. And before World War I, British females of child-bearing age were having 3.2 children on average which created a constant, but manageable population growth rate.
This translated into a healthy economy — all those new mouths to feed, clothe, educate and shelter — and such birthrates form the basis of every domestic economy.
In economies with a high national birthrate per fertile woman, a significant domestic economy exists and consequently, sending raw resources or manufactured goods to other countries *isn’t* required to prop up the economy.
When more people are being born than are dying every year, you have the perfect domestic economy — and exports are merely the icing on the cake — and what a ride it is when the domestic economy is growing and exports are growing every year! Woot!
That’s how Britain prospered for centuries, until WWI and WWII changed all that.
Let’s Skip Over the War Part and Get to the Results
Enough has been written and filmed about Britain’s part in WWI and WWII to fill entire libraries (as it should, and to every living and long-dead veteran, thank you again for our freedom!) but for our discussion today, let’s look at how two world wars changed the demographic picture of Britain.
Women entered the formal workforce and began to earn money.
This was done because the men were away fighting a war and the country was in a desperate labour shortage. Anyone who could turn a shovel, milk a cow, assemble a rifle, or ‘man’ a telephone exchange, was put to work immediately. Some workers were barely in their teens and had plenty of responsibility on their shoulders. The British people of the last century were truly an adaptable and amazing people who rose to every challenge and succeeded. Often at great personal cost.
With most of the men away, women worked up to 16-hour shifts on farms or in factories, and still cared for their household and any children that had been born prior to the war, and Britain’s birthrate fell precipitously. In fact, the birthrate per fertile woman fell below replacement levels and the population of the country as a whole, began to fall.
No country can sustain such a falling birthrate, however due to the extremely high wartime demand for weapons and other war matériel the economy continued to function. Not as well as prior to the war mind you, but it still functioned — and apart from borrowing money on the international markets to fund the war machine — Britain’s economy remained sound. The last payment on Britain’s WWI and WWII $120 billion war debt was recently repaid in 2006.
Economic Recovery and Birthrate in the Postwar Era
The result of all this war was that there was a postwar baby boom and Britain’s economy once again began to thrive.
Two profound things changed the British economy forever in the postwar era: 1) British women were likely to put off having children and continue working, and 2) in 1961 birth control pills became available to married women and were later made available to single women.
As a result, the birthrate per fertile woman in Britain again plummeted (replacement levels in Western countries is at 2.2 babies per fertile woman) and employers were eager to employ women who were happy to work for less than half of what men earned. In some cases, women were paid only 40% of what their male counterparts earned and no one thought anything about the discrepancy — not even the women.
Women’s participation in the workforce increased, and beginning in the 1970’s the rates of pay for women began to rise and even fewer babies were born to British women who were too busy earning income to want children.
Consequently, the government was informed by industry-centric economists to open the floodgates to foreign workers (starting in 1999) to meet the demand for labour in the country (which is a different way of saying, ‘bring in the kind of workers who will work for what we used to pay the women’ e.g. 40% of the wage rate for male workers) and British profits will rise again. Indeed they did, but unemployment among British citizens rose and downward pressure on wages began to be a measurable factor.
Company profits rose, British GDP rose, productivity fell but later recovered as the foreign workers became more proficient at their jobs and had a better understanding of the English language, and domestic demand for goods and services (which every economy is built on) skyrocketed.
All of it is an astonishing success story, Britain with its wartime partners winning two world wars, rebuilding its economy in the postwar era, adding millions of women to the workforce, the introduction of pharmaceutical birth control, near-parity for women’s wages in recent years, high profits for companies and a respectable GDP growth curve.
The downside for some is that it took millions of foreign-born workers migrating to Britain to sustain growth in the UK economy because British-born women would rather work than have babies. (Just like women in other developed countries)
Which brings us to the present moment.
Would UK Women Prefer to Have Babies, or Would They Prefer to Work?
The simple answer is, if they could afford to stay home and have babies, they would. Many studies support this finding although a certain percentage of women would continue to work until their 40’s before having children.
Even in this era of cheap birth control and relatively plentiful work for women, many women would prefer to stay home and raise children. But due to lower wages as a result of massive immigration many families cannot afford to have one wage-earner staying at home to raise children.
And we all know how enormously expensive raising children can be these days.
Are There Any Solutions?
There are always solutions. The question is, are they affordable and acceptable to the majority of citizens?
- Wages rise enough for one wage-earner to support the entire family and have enough money left over to take a nice, 3-week family vacation per year (like it used to be in the ‘old days’) OR,
- British citizens willing to go through the effort and expense of raising children must receive some kind of assistance paid by an incremental increase in the national taxation rate.
Eventually, everyone who pays taxes would be able to recoup the additional portion of the taxes paid when they themselves decide to have children.
Using a Parental Guaranteed Basic Income to Boost the UK-born Birthrate
Let’s say that UK-born ‘Richard’ and ‘Anne’ want to have children. But because of the high costs of food, clothing and shelter in the UK (which you can partially blame on high immigration loads that force-up prices) they decide they must remain working until they can afford to have children. Many Britons are caught in this trap.
Why is it a trap? Because every year they remain working, the cost of everything continues to rise and they’re no further ahead after ten hard years of effort.
Both people working + one recession = no kids. It happens over and over. Working couples barely reach a point where they feel they can afford to start a family, and BOOM! along comes a financial crisis. Bad for the baby-blanket business!
It’s typical for recessions to occur every 15-25 years. So British-born couples like ‘Richard’ and ‘Anne’ may never reach their goal of having children, like millions of other Britons. And if they finally get to the point where they feel they can afford a family — they’re 100 years old like Abraham and Sarah of ancient Mesopotamia.
And everyone wonders why Britain has a 1.89 birth rate per fertile woman, which is far below population replacement levels. As mentioned above, 2.2 births per fertile woman is considered replacement level in developed nations. If you want to grow the population and not just maintain the present number, then the birthrate value must rise above 2.2 births per fertile woman.
The UK has a long way to go to meet replacement levels, let alone begin to increase the population!
If that’s true, why does the UK population continue to increase? One word: Immigration.
Again, the solution if you don’t want ever-increasing immigration to prop-up your population and eventually replace the UK-born people;
- Raise wages dramatically so that one wage-earner can afford to provide for the entire family, OR,
- Families with children receive some kind of payment from the government financed by an incremental tax increase.
For those who don’t like higher taxes, hey, that’s your right. But don’t complain when your children are the last native-born Britons in the country!
Assuming you don’t want to hand Britain over to foreigners (even though some of them are very nice) UK-born women will need to be compensated for leaving their career and raising children.
A monthly payment can make the difference between a falling or rising birthrate.
If ‘Richard’ continues to work and ‘Anne’ receives a Parental Guaranteed Basic Income (PGBI) of £1088 per month, it might be enough for middle class families to get by with only one wage-earner.
In this way the negative birthrate problem in the UK will eventually be righted and massive immigration loads will no longer be required to sustain the UK population / and consequent domestic economy.
More UK-born children = fewer immigrants moving to the UK
Assuming both ‘Richard’ and ‘Anne’ have worked since leaving school and paid their fair share of taxes, when they are ready to start a family they will do so secure in the knowledge they will be able to afford it due to the PGBI system. ‘Richard’ will earn his wages and ‘Anne’ will receive £1088 per month.
At income-tax time, they simply combine their income (let’s assume £80,000/yr for ‘Richard’ and £13,056 for ‘Anne’) and pay the normal amount of tax on their combined income of £93,056.
If they keep their expenses low, that’s enough annual income to raise one child until he/she reaches 18 years of age.
Which is certainly cheaper for the UK than paying double that amount to host one immigrant who will send much of his/her earned money to his home country to help his or her family for as long as he/she remains in the UK.
If we’re paying thousands per month for each immigrant (directly and indirectly) to sustain the UK population, why can’t we pay ‘Anne’ less than half that monthly amount to raise a UK-born child?
Eventually, ‘Richard’ and ‘Anne’s’ child will grow up to become a worker and he or she won’t be sending thousands of pounds sterling off to a foreign country every year (yes, the immigrants work very hard for their money — they can do what they like with it) but the UK-born child will simply spend their earnings in the UK economy, except for his/her vacations outside of the UK.
For as long as ‘Anne’ stays at home raising her children, she can continue to collect the £1088 per month PGBI until she returns to the workforce and begins earning more than that monthly amount, or when her child hits 18 years of age, her PGBI payments will be discontinued.
Obviously, the easiest way to run this programme is via a ‘reverse income tax’ where a person’s income, their partner and their child, all appear on the same income tax form. After filing their combined tax form, couples would be notified of their eligibility for PGBI and monthly payments would begin.
Caveat: As long as ‘Anne’ is receiving any amount of income over £1088 per month, either via unemployment insurance payments, annuity payments, inheritances, lottery winnings, gifts from family members, or from whatever other source, ‘Anne’ will not qualify for the PGBI payment. If she is earning less than £1088 per month (from all sources) the PGBI programme would top-up her personal income to £1088/month.
Although it sounds expensive, it would still be cheaper by half compared to the present method of paying immigrants to keep the UK population at a sustainable level and thereby keeping consumer demand high in the overall economy.
How to Pay for This?
Britons are already paying for it… TWICE OVER!
Each immigrant represents a significant cost to the British taxpayer, (and yes, they do work very hard to earn a living in the UK, no one is denying that) but in addition to using infrastructure and services in the country just like everyone else, there is a cost differential of about £100,000 per immigrant over their lifetime.
The Home Office / Border Force must devote considerable time and effort to immigrants with some costs happening even before the migrant lands in Britain.
Immigrants receive the same benefits as UK citizens such as welfare payments, and cost the government in other ways, including police, court, and incarceration costs, higher than average security and certain administration costs that are unique to immigrants — and they displace UK-born workers as they’re willing to work for lower wages.
In addition, they send billions of pounds sterling home every year. The figure of £20 billion per year is most often used — but it is likely much higher. Forget about official statistics, the UK government (like most governments) only records those foreign remittances that people volunteer (£3.2 billion) to share with the government. Banks and wire transfer services like Western Union know the real deal on foreign remittances.
And that’s costly to the UK economy. Just divide £20 billion by the 8 million foreign-born residents in the country and you’ll see how costly ‘foreign remittances’ are for the United Kingdom.
The final note on foreign remittances is terrifying. Such payments are notoriously difficult to prove, but the standard number of £20 billion/yr is a guesstimate. It’s widely acknowledged that UK foreign remittances may be double that amount, and could in the very worst-case scenario top £56 billion per year. And you don’t want to know the grand total of foreign remittances since 1999. No matter the number, it’s a lot of money leaving the UK that will never, ever, return.
What could those billions have done for the UK economy? We’ll never know.
‘Cutting Our Losses’ Covers Half of the Cost of a Parental GBI, but More Tax?
In addition to lowering immigration to low levels because UK-born women would be having more babies — there would need to be an incremental tax increase.
A Tobin Tax is simply a tax on all financial transactions in the country. It’s called an ‘invisible tax’ because banks and retailers simply add an internal 1% tax to each and every financial transaction and remit the revenue to the government annually.
- Buy or sell some stock, it costs you 1% more than at present.
- Buy a beer, it costs you 1% more than at present.
- Take £100 from the ATM (yes, that’s a financial transaction) and the bank charges you 1% on the total amount.
- Buy some petrol and 1% is automatically added to the cost.
Basically, whatever you purchase is going to cost you 1% more unless it’s something that costs more than £100,000 — because you pay the Tobin Tax only on the first £100,000 on any individual purchase. Which is nice when you’re buying an Airbus A380 or other large purchase.
Yes, nobody likes higher taxes that’s for certain. But there’s no rule that the Tobin Tax must be set as high as 1%. Some Tobin Tax proponents suggest it could be used to fund special projects like a GBI for UK parents only — in which case it could be set at .2% on individual purchases.
It’s your choice.
Does lower immigration, lower foreign remittance levels, more UK-born children to keep the population stable, and more jobs for Britons matter to you? Or does a Parental GBI funded by a .2% Tobin Tax nullify those gains?
Let us know in the comments!
Population & Density Charts for the United Kingdom 1950 – 2020