Excuse me? This sounds like elitism, and saying lets kill the rest of the
population off if they do not make any money. What kind of world is this?
Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Robin" wrote in message
...
On 26/07/2018 09:09, michael adams wrote:
"Robin" wrote in message
...

And as a London resident I'd find it hard to explain to people outside
London why
central government should give TfL more of their taxes to subsidise
travel in London
while Londoners' enjoy a fares freeze.

Well you could start by pointing out that London, followed by the South
East, and to a very small degree the East of England are the only
areas of the UK which actually make a positive contribution to the
UK economy

As the graph, half down this abstract from the ONS shows

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/gover...2015to2016#toc
Country and regional public sector finances: Financial year ending March
2016


In short London contributes around 28 billion, The South East around 15
billion and the East of England around 2 billion. The North West of
England on the other hand produced a 22 billion deficit,
Yorkshire around a 14 million deficit, and Scotland around a
15 billion deficit.


You seem there to be equating net fiscal contribution with contribution
to
the UK economy. I thought one usually looked at total public spending as
a proportion of a region's GDP (or more probably GVA).

One might indeed normally do that. But in this case had one been
reading the newspapers over the past two years - ever since the
referendum in fact - one might have been struck by continual
references to the fact of London's contributing such a large
percentage of the GVA both of the UK and of England.

Of course had one forgotten this, although I find it hard to
imagine how one possibly could, one might I suppose need to
refresh one's memory.

Total GVA (£ million) GVA per head
UK 1,747,647 26,339
England 1,498,221 27,108
London 408,479 46,482
South East 258,902 28,683
North East 50,675 19,218
North West 166,542 23,068

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/gross...duk/1998to2016





Otherwise workers who receive, say, £3,000 p.a.
net more in benefits and public services than they pay in taxes,
duties etc score as a "net loss" to the economy, even if they are
responsible for a net positive £10,000 p.a. contribution to GVA/GDP.

That would only make sense were one able to produce any kind of
satisfactory explanation as to why people who receive more in
benefits than they pay in taxes should be consistently more
productive than anyone else.

So can one ?

Or rather than making up fanciful examples bearing no relation
to reality, might one instead take advantage of the wonders
of the world wide web and look things up for oneself ?

Fat chance !

So that in the above example Londoners are twice as
productive as workers in the North West and well over
twice as productive as workers in the NE. While London
alone is responsible for 23% of the the GVA of the UK as
a whole and 27% of that of England. Whereas astonishingly,
if the figures are to be believed, the NE former home of
Swan Hunter, Dormman Long, Vickers Whitworth, etc etc is
responsible for a mere 2.8% of UK GVA and 3.3% of English GVA.

And we all know who voted most strongly in favour of Brexit,
now, don't we boys and girls ? As the newspapers have been
reminding us ad-nauseam for the past two years. Well some
of us, anyway.


michael adams

...