OBR - This is full of golden nuggets.

[SirGalahad]

The growth forecasts are the biggest takeaway from the budget - its clear indication that the policies have failed.

The OBR forecasts on growth at such low levels will mean that we will have to borrow even more. We will not be able to cut our way to a better economy - we have had 7 years of it and its still not worked and now according to OBR forecasts the economy will be about £70bn smaller than March 16 forecasts.

http://cdn.budgetresponsibility.org.uk/Nov2017EFOwebversion-2.pdf

This will drive some on here insane. We expect more migration.

3.80
We currently judge the participation rate to be close to its underlying equilibrium rate. The participation rate is expected to remain broadly flat up to 2020, declining subsequently as the population share of older people rises. The 0.7 million rise in employment over the forecast is therefore more than accounted for by population growth. The ONS population projections underpinning our forecast imply that around half the expected population growth over the forecast period is associated with net inward migration but, since inward migrants are disproportionately of working age (albeit less so than in the previous projections), that around three-quarters of the projected rise in employment is accounted for by net inward migration.

 

[Mike10]

(albeit less so than in the previous projections),

So they admit they were wrong before, not only on this point either it has to be said, they could well be wrong again couldn't they.
It is a projection, aka a guess, at the end of the day

 

[Notch7]

The growth forecasts are the biggest takeaway from the budget - its clear indication that the policies have failed.

The OBR forecasts on growth at such low levels will mean that we will have to borrow even more. We will not be able to cut our way to a better economy - we have had 7 years of it and its still not worked and now according to OBR forecasts the economy will be about £70bn smaller than March 16 forecasts.

http://cdn.budgetresponsibility.org.uk/Nov2017EFOwebversion-2.pdf

This will drive some on here insane. We expect more migration.

3.80
We currently judge the participation rate to be close to its underlying equilibrium rate. The participation rate is expected to remain broadly flat up to 2020, declining subsequently as the population share of older people rises. The 0.7 million rise in employment over the forecast is therefore more than accounted for by population growth. The ONS population projections underpinning our forecast imply that around half the expected population growth over the forecast period is associated with net inward migration but, since inward migrants are disproportionately of working age (albeit less so than in the previous projections), that around three-quarters of the projected rise in employment is accounted for by net inward migration.

Hardly surprising, there is probably almost full employment in the sectors and locations needing employees, so not surprising migrants are employed in higher numbers.

 

[vinty]

If there is now full employment why does the government have to borrow more money, shouldn't tax revenues be rolling in or is this economic miracle a bit of a fraud.
Aren't living standards supposed to rise during periods of full employment yet the so called experts are predicting that living standards for the average worker will fall.

 

[Doggit]

If there is now full employment why does the government have to borrow more money

The definition of "full employment" discounts the 4% or so that will always be unemployed, so the 96% is considered as full as it's ever going to get. Tax revenues from those employed, is reduced by the benefits handed out to the lower paid, and ignores that fact that many of the foreign born workers on a minimum wage actually cost us more than they pay in tax, some with housing benefit, and those that bring their families over also get working families tax credit, so foreign workers being an asset to the country is a myth, especially those that come from the EU. Child migrants cost councils about £30,000 a year, and the education budget is stretched with the growing numbers of foreign children that don;t speak English, but it has to be said that once they learn, they do seem to work harder than native speaking children do, and will be an asset for the next generation.

But wages haven't gone up because employers know that the benefits system will make up for a lack of wages.

The likes of Amazon and Starbucks etc are not paying their fair share of tax because they post the sales to low tax countries, and too many people at the top have their noses in the trough. The police are demanding more money, but are sitting on £1.8bn in reserves, and are fairly unaccountable for their actions.

Add in the fact that the amount we all pay before tax has risen from £3500 to £11500 and you can see that the tax take would be far higher if that hadn't been introduced.

In 2015/16, the NHS received £116bn, but we paid £48.5Bn, and as interest rates have just gone up, so will the interest payment as well.

Labour didn't cause the financial crash, but could have regulated the banks better, and we'd have ridden the crash out a bit better if they hadn't spent so much whilst in power. And the conservatives shouldn't have introduced Quantative Easing, as the banks used it to fill their reserves rather than lending to business's that would have helped stimulate growth.

We've had no chancellor since Lamont that actually knows what they are doing, and none that have the courage to change the system, simply because they know the opposition would rip them to pieces, even though both parties know what needs to be done, so in essence, the whole system is a sham, and will keep getting worse whilst our economic policies are based on GDP growth through sales rather than productivity.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

..., and ignores that fact that many of the foreign born workers on a minimum wage actually cost us more than they pay in tax, some with housing benefit, and those that bring their families over also get working families tax credit, so foreign workers being an asset to the country is a myth, especially those that come from the EU. Child migrants cost councils about £30,000 a year, and the education budget is stretched with the growing numbers of foreign children that don;t speak English, ..

What a load of bigoted baloney!
Doggit at his best, spouting off his "theories" about migrants! He claims he knows better than experts who, with teams of researchers, have conducted studies!

This has benefits for the government’s budget. If migrants are of working age, they will pay income tax, VAT – but will not be claiming benefits.

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/6399/economics/impact-of-immigration-on-uk-economy/

The high net migration (224,000 per year) scenario results in stronger public finances, with the debt to GDP ratio at 70 per cent by 2065.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...r-rudd-tory-conference-speeches-a7346121.html

According to research from University College London, the net-fiscal contribution since 2000 - that is to say, the amount extra in tax immigrants have contributed to the public purse versus the amount they have cost us is almost £5bn net in taxes paid by immigrants from Eastern European countries (like Poland and Romania) that joined the EU in 2004. EU immigrants as a whole (so including the likes of France and Germany) is net £15bn. Over the same period, non-EU immigrants have also contributed net £5bn.
On the benefits point specifically, according to the same report immigrants are 43% less likely than UK-born natives to claim benefits or tax credits - and are 7% less likely to live in social housing. The truth is that when people come here, they’re not coming here to claim benefits - but are coming here to work.

http://www.lifehacker.co.uk/2016/06...r-bad-for-britain-here-are-the-best-arguments

Mass EU migration into Britain is actually good news for UK economy

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-britain-is-actually-good-news-for-uk-economy

 

[Notch7]

If there is now full employment why does the government have to borrow more money, shouldn't tax revenues be rolling in or is this economic miracle a bit of a fraud.
Aren't living standards supposed to rise during periods of full employment yet the so called experts are predicting that living standards for the average worker will fall.

I wasnt making the case for almost full employment as economic success. I should have quoted just the relevant part.

I was responding to this

that around three-quarters of the projected rise in employment is accounted for by net inward migration

I was pointing out that if there is a need for more workers in the UK, its not surprising that it will need to be fulfilled by foreign workers.

Tax revenues have fallen a long way below spending in the last 10 years. Hence why we are borrowing more. I dont know the reasons why. Part of it is due to the financial crash.

 

[JohnD]

Hence why we are borrowing more. I dont know the reasons why.

It's notable that this week's budget had some spending commitments, and some tax cuts (benefitting the better-off more than the poor) but not some tax or growth to fund it.

So the government intends to spend more and receive less.

As Mr Micawber said, result, misery.

 

[Doggit]

What a load of bigoted baloney!
Doggit at his best, spouting off his "theories" about migrants!

And you've never considered that both points of view are correct Wannabe (even taking in to account that you're studies are all left wing biased) and that if we didn't have migrants on low wages claiming housing and in work benefits, then the benefits of migration you espouse, would be even better.

One of the problems we have, is that immigrants are needed to do the jobs that the home grown benefit scroungers don't want to do, so we're paying twice for some of the low paid immigrant workers that are therefore a necessity. This is a simple case of economics, not bigotry, and has nothing to do with those immigrants that have well paid jobs, and make a good contribution to the economy.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

And you've never considered that both points of view are correct Wannabe (even taking in to account that you're studies are all left wing biased) and that if we didn't have migrants on low wages claiming housing and in work benefits, then the benefits of migration you espouse, would be even better.

Aah, bless. The experts opinions that differentiate form doggit's must be left wing biased!
He is too wrapped up in his slagging off migrants to realise it is his opinion that is RWR biased!
Without doubt, from any point of view migrants are a an economical benefit to UK, not the scroungers that you try to paint them as.

One of the problems we have, is that immigrants are needed to do the jobs that the home grown benefit scroungers don't want to do, so we're paying twice for some of the low paid immigrant workers that are therefore a necessity. This is a simple case of economics, not bigotry, and has nothing to do with those immigrants that have well paid jobs, and make a good contribution to the economy.

You manage to turn it into a bigoted rant against migrants!

 

[Doggit]

The only person I'm possibly bigoted against Wannabe, is you; I have never in my life seen someone so far up their own arse, that they can't see themselves for what they are, a small minded individual that hates and detests anyone that has a different viewpoint, and in being unable to have an intelligent conversation with anyone, is forced to twist whatever anyone says to justify your responses.

JohnD can be annoying with his continual political rants, but he's polite and courteous when stood by you.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

The only person I'm possibly bigoted against Wannabe, is you; I have never in my life seen someone so far up their own arse, that they can't see themselves for what they are, a small minded individual that hates and detests anyone that has a different viewpoint, and in being unable to have an intelligent conversation with anyone, is forced to twist whatever anyone says to justify your responses.

JohnD can be annoying with his continual political rants, but he's polite and courteous when stood by you.

A well presented counter-argument.