[img] 
[/img]
Larger version here:
This should be good.
Stoner another one for you mate. TJ you'll also have something (lefty) to say I'm sure 😉
Good, thanks southerners.
Who knows, but we clearly have better schools....
Dose north can haz subsiddize soth????
I may be a southerner, but I have absolutely no problem with this.
It's why it's so nice to be an inhabitant of a civilised nation, rather than of one of a number of fractious balkanised city-states immersed in permanent low-level warfare and competitive tax policy. 🙂
you got a problem with that? 👿
[url]
OOTSIDE ! !
It has nothing to do with points of the compass and or some sort of "geographical" issue.
It's the poor who subsidise the rich.
The wages of the poor are kept low, so that there is more money available for the rich.
Poor people and wealthy people live in different areas...........I'll give you that.
The SE is overcrowded so I'm happy to subsidise people living elsewhere if it means less come here....
FIT THE FOOOOK! oche, ye soothern Safties. ye dinnae kaen fit yer takin aboot.
back to the subject, Im pretty sure that its scottish windpower etc etc that are feeding into the national grid.
culturally obviously the answer is yes
i've managed to read a national sunday paper that travels to the north and am very grateful to see words and sometimes pictures of great theatrical and literary events in the noble city
THERE'S A WORLD OUTSIDE THE M25?!!!!! JESUS ****IN' CHRIST!!!!!! SOMEONE BETTER LET THE NATIONAL MEDIA KNOW!!!!
On second thoughts: don't. Please
The proles can't be expected to fund their own whippets and flat caps, can they?
It's the poor who subsidise the rich.
😆
erm...hate to stet the obvious here. But those figures are for 2006/7. When Gordons economic miracle meant 'the City' was representing a massive part of the income of the British economy
Since then, I seem to recall reading an article or two suggesting that that particular revenue stream has gone into reverse. Quite abruptly. And ****in then some. I'd love to see the comparible figures for 2009/10
I can't be arsed to read the 'disparity' box (and without getting in to a more complicated argument), but given salaries are higher on average in the south, especially in the capital; and given the city has so many seven figure salaries, are the average contributions per capita not bound to be much higher in the sunny south?
Stats like that are made up to make everyone think it's grim up north. I'm happy to keep it that way too, as less people coming up from the south means we get to keep our fantastic trails and incredible beaches to ourselves. 🙂
not according to the link. Southerners (specifcally The City) subsidisies Wales and Northern Ireland. As I'll be telling my in-laws in the third world aka S.Wales.
Actually I have no problem with this - being a Northerner living in the SE.
Methadone, white lightening and dildos don't come cheap you know
I've lived oop norf. You're kidding yourself if you think it's not grim.
The real reason is that the southerners are scared of the northerners, so they pay tribute to stop the northerners coming down there and ravishing their wimmen.
Just like the old Danegeld 🙂
Its grim up north? Have you been to Essex?
binners - Member
Its grim up north? Have you been to Essex?
Never mind that, seen North Kent? One of the poorest areas of the UK, but they don't have such a chip on their shoulder so you don't hear them whining away sanctimoniously.
There are very poor places in London, there are very wealthy places in Cheshire. Deal with it. Get the chip off yer shoulders!
I'm a northerner. Its standard issue 😀
There are many ways of looking at the figures. You can show almost anything you want but the one clear thing is the north east of England and the south west get a really raw deal
One of the inaccurate things that usually present in these stats is that UK wide companies that have their head office in London any profits are shown as originating in London rthather than where they are generated
Another one is that if you take total government spending it shows the south east of England getting the most - Whitehall salaries and so on - all pumping money into the south East - so London and the south east are the subsidy junkies.
As for Scotland - the net flow of money is from Scotland to England shown many times over and its actually getting worse.
Scotland has around 9% of the UK population but under Barnet only gets 8% of any rises in public spending - so each year Scotlands share of the cake decreases relative to population. and all that money getting spent on the olympics has been excluded from Barnet - altho it should be in there - If Scotland got its fair share of that money........
Nature has a metaphor for these diagrams showing the North/ South distribution of economic worth.
Many crabs are parasitised by a type of specialised barnacle called Sacculina. This creature is found on the lower 'southern' segments of the crab's abdomen.
When looked at closly the sacculina would appear to be the most biologically active part of the two organisms, in comparison to the crab, but what the sacculina is doing is sending tendrils deep into the tissues of the host, withering and neutering it for the barnacles benefit.
In summary, those of us ,North of Watford, who are all a bit crabbie, need to find some kind of 'anti- sacculina ' treatment 🙂
Oh - good trolling BTW
Whitehall salaries and so on - all pumping money into the south East - so London and the south east are the subsidy junkies.
TJ, salaries is the salient word there. Salaries, that is to say people [i]working[/i] for their money, not sitting on their backsides eating deep fried Chewits and drinking Buckfast until the next dole cheque.
Buckfast is expensive up here, the £1 for 2 litre bottles of cider are all the rage now.
the one clear thing is the north east of England and the south west get a really raw deal
Snot clear to me... explain please?
ah yes the old north vs south sectarianism raises its ugly head again.
I'm a Yorkshireman. I was born here and I live here, and quite possibly may die here. It has its grot spots - quite a few of them, mostly former industrial centres; but it also has its nice bits, and I'm not talking about just the National Parks. Within 5 miles of the centre of Bradford is some of the most fantastic scenery you can get in England.
I've been to the south once or twice (and then some). That too has its nice bits & not so nice bits. But I wouldn't want to live there.
[b]TandemJeremy[/b] - Whitehall salaries and so on - all pumping money into the south East - so London and the south east are the subsidy junkies.
[b]CaptainFlashheart[/b] - salaries is the salient word there. Salaries, that is to say people working for their money, not sitting on their backsides...
"People working for their money, not sitting on their backsides" ? .......Flashheart supports public sector/government employees ? 😯
Anyway.... enough of this nonsense. Lets cut to the chase.
I can get to the lakes in less than an hour. North Wales, the Peaks, Yorkshire hills and west pennine moors after work for night rides
Where you Londoners doing most of your riding nowadays then. I hear hyde pars...like... TOTALLY AWESOME 🙂
CFH - the point being that those Whitehall salaries are not included in the government spend for London. Take out tax receipts that are reported in London abut generated Uk wide and add in the various Whitehall and quango salaries paid out of taxation and it shows London as receiving more taxpayers money per capita than it generates.
Lies damn lies and statistics.
Buzz - I have looked at a number of similar analyses for this sort of thing - the figures being manipulated to show whatever the person doing the analysis wanted. Teh one clear consistent thing is that the south west and the North East of England get a smaller share of government spending than the rest of the UK
OK so why is that? Some historic effects?
[i]I can get to the lakes in less than an hour[/i]
takes me about 90 minutes to Windermere. But I can be in the Dales inside 40 minutes 🙂
Of course Southerners don't subsidise Northerners. It's the other way around. Without the rest of us bailing out the banks, London would be bankrupt.
Oh - and thene- there is the oil of course - all the profits from the oil are not shown in the scots tax revenue - infact much of it is reported as London Tax revenue as the companies report the profits asnd pay the tax in London
Enough - No one from the south east will admit to being the subnsidy junkies that they are - sucking moneyu and life out oif the rest of the UK
As it seems few have read the text in the box:
There a number of mutually reinforcing reasons for the disparities shown here. In terms of tax contributions, it is well known that economic activity is unevenly distributed throughout the UK. There are numerous economic, social, political and historical reasons which co-produce this geography. London, for instance, is the base for industries which dominate not just the national economy, but the global economy. The financial sector, creative industries and business services are all high value-added activities located in the capital. A large number of global corporations also make London their home and consequently pay tax there. The presence of these high value activities in the South reflects and reinforces the function of the country’s core developmental assets – “senior corporate functions, public and private R&D resources, higher-level skills, venture capital funds, and political power circuits both political and economic” – to the detriment of the rest of the country.In terms of government spending in the regions there are two important factors to bare in mind. First, the majority of government spending is done to benefit particular groups of people irrespective of their location. Yorkshire and Humberside, for example, receives a disproportionate amount of public monies (relative to tax contributions) in part because that region has a disproportionate amount of groups who benefit from government spending (e.g. unemployment benefit).
Second, particular regions have high levels of public sector employment and therefore receive high levels of public spending. For a relatively small population, the North East of England has five large universities, holds key functions for the Department of Work and Pensions and has a large cultural sector supported by public monies. Furthermore, public sector jobs have often been used to fill employment gaps created by industrial restructuring.
Essentially, the South's economy is more buoyant because the economy in the South is more buoyant at the expensive of the rest of the country - it ain't a level playing field.
Scotland has around 9% of the UK population but under Barnet only gets 8% of any rises in public spending - so each year Scotlands share of the cake decreases relative to population. and all that money getting spent on the olympics has been excluded from Barnet - altho it should be in there - If Scotland got its fair share of that money........
But benefits (and similar govt spending) aren't spend by place.
...and it was only half trolling, it is part of a research project i'm involved in.
Capt Jon - so why should UK wide companies that make their profits UK wide have the tax they pay added to the London figures? Thats just inaccurate and makes your figures meaningless meaningless.
You need to have a look at the Barnet formula as well
Sorry - badly flased in those two wasy
So why should UK wide companies that make their profits UK wide have the tax they pay added to the London figures?
The stats aren't mine, they are from ONS and Oxford Economics.
Tax figures broken down:
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
Fill your boots.
Capt Jon - so why should UK wide companies that make their profits UK wide have the tax they pay added to the London figures? Thats just inaccurate and makes your figures meaningless meaningless.
Well it's no different to the argument you use to include oil receipts in Scotland's figures. Quite interesting to hear you criticise London and the south east though when, if you were to consider Scotland in isolation, the same arguments can applied to the central belt in general and Edinburgh in particular.
Gonefishing - no its not as regards the oil. Teh profit and tax on the oil is generated in part in Scotland - but not credited to it - the opposite. You also miss my point - these figures can be manipulated to show what you want. I clearly said that earlier on. I wsa not critising any area - just pointing out that there are different ways of looking at the figures that give very differnt results.
Capt Jon - you don't answer the question. Why should UK wide profits reported in London be credited to London when they are generated UK wide?
Dunno about this subsidizing stuff, but having just looked out the window, i think we're borrowing your crap weather. Sunny Saarf my ar**!
Did the sunny south solely subsidise the sickening £62 BILLION safety net for FAILED adventure in extreme capitalistic ideoLOLogy this year?
I think not.
Yeah, the South subsidises the North and it's really grim up here, stay down there and feel superior, it's much better down south.
/Snicker! Look, they're buying it. Sssshhhhh!!
Capt Jon - you don't answer the question. Why should UK wide profits reported in London be credited to London when they are generated UK wide?
Because you have to draw a line somewhere and it is simpler to work out where profits are reported than where they are made.
So actually your figures are fairly meaningless then - and certainly biased towards showing London as contributing more than it does and spending less than it does?
Very useful
Stoner to the forum please. Stoner to the forum!
If you actually bother to look at the tables backing up the figures you will see that Petroleum Revenue Tax, the essential tax on oil exploration, is fully credited to Scotland. Second, there does not seem to that much skew to corporate tax receipts because of HQ in London and the South East. London & SE Corporation Tax/Total Corporation Tax tax is 35.46%, London & SE Total Tax/Total tax is 33.3% so Corporation Tax seem to be allocated in more or less the same proportion as other taxes. Corporation Tax is also a pretty small part of the total tax take - 7%.
Where's RBS headquartered? How much profit did they make again? Who bailed them out? Do you think it should have been Scotland as a whole who stumped up, or just the good folk of Edinburgh?
TJ, by your argument, your figures are also meaningless. 🙂
Vinney, Scotland can do no wrong and everything is perfect there. Well, if you listen to TJ that is. 😉
The Cock-er-ney economy is surely going to struggle now anyway. Now that Chas and Dave have called it a day. London's greatest cultural export
vinnyeh - MemberTJ, by your argument, your figures are also meaningless.
Yup - absolutly. Thats one of the issues with this sort of analysis and I said said that in an earlier post. These figures can be manipulated to show whatever you want them to by what you include or not. The SNP have an analysis that shows every scot subsidised England £800 each per year.
I think Northerners should think about some cockney gift aid.
Just one pot of jellied eels can feed a family of cheeky cockneys for a almost a week.
A handful of sequins could make all the difference for a pearly king and queen.
Do quote Geldof's lyrics
"And there won't be snow in Stepney this christmas time,
Do they know it's Christmas time at all"
Powerful stuff.
But you said
but, they don't.Oh - and thene- there is the oil of course - all the profits from the oil are not shown in the scots tax revenue - infact much of it is reported as London Tax revenue as the companies report the profits asnd pay the tax in London
You also said
but again they don't.One of the inaccurate things that usually present in these stats is that UK wide companies that have their head office in London any profits are shown as originating in London rather than where they are generated
Finally why do you need the formula, the Barnett formula for allocating expenditure if you have actual figures for expenditure.
TandemJeremy - MemberThere are many ways of looking at the figures. You can show almost anything you want ..........................................
Or you can point out why figures are wrong and meaningless, and then when further delving shows that the holes in the figures you point out don't exist, you say then you can do anything with figures.
TandemJeremy - MemberThere are many ways of looking at the figures. You can show almost anything you want .........................
According to that well know statistician Vic Reeves, 67.3% of facts and figures are made up on the spot.
CaptJon - Member"Capt Jon - you don't answer the question. Why should UK wide profits reported in London be credited to London when they are generated UK wide?"
Because you have to draw a line somewhere and it is simpler to work out where profits are reported than where they are made.
Capt Jon - admits that hole in the figures. There are others - some of what I posted rather stretched the point I admit - but any comparison done like this using such poor methodology are meaningless as I have repeatedly stated.
I could point out many other holes.
If he admits that hole in the figures he is wrong because it is not there. In fact Scotland corporate tax allocation is also proportionately slightly greatly that their total tax allocation.
I could point out many other holes.
As all the holes you believe you have pointed out don't exist, is there any point?
Another thing to consider is the overall internal migration in the country.
Do more people move north or south to work ?
I would guess a lot more people are brought up in the north/midlands move to the south east to earn a bit of money then move back again later.
I'd guess these people wouldnt mind if some (most) of their tax money was spent in their home areas.
I'm from the Midland originally and work in London, I guess on my earning is counted on being in London. However I live in Reading and would rather my income tax was spent on either the Midlands or the Reading area as I spend as little time as possible in London.
Move the Royal Family to Middlesbrough, and it'll all even out.
Wait for the next hot summer and we might sell you some water from Kielder at a reasonable price...
... just don't mention Northern Rock!
TJ
So, essentially you're stats aren't perfect. Well duhhh! Of course they aren't, i'm not saying they are (and most statisticians would admit that too). They are aggregations and estimations and depicted at various scales. Anyone with an ounce of insght into stats knows this, and understands they can be manipulated. And again, they aren't my stats, just my depiction of stats produced by the Office of National Statistics and Oxford Economics. It is their methodology.
Just because there are problems with the collection and interpretation of the data doesn't mean they can or should be dismissed as meaningless.
I'd be interested to hear your solution to capturing these themes that gets over issues of aggregation, travel to work area overlaps, productivity levels, output values, tax levels, tax evasion, benefit fraud, the economic value of social reproduction of the labour market, miscalculations, mistakes etc...
Capt jon - on that one you have me beat. Its far easier to pick holes in methodology and to deconstruct than it is to construct.
sorry.
IMO the best bet is to look at a whole range of figures with biases from different directions and say " the truth is probably in the middle somewhere" Hardly valid!
With the analysis of regional tax and spending it depends very much on what you include and what you don't and how you apportion national spending and taxation. Whatever methodology you pick there will be bias and inaccuracy.
National infra structure spending and the economic activity generated by that will have a noticeable effect I would have thought. The second will be included in in the year you look at, but the former would have happened many years earlier. Also I suspect looking at a single year at a time when I think the financial sector was still booming might not be the best barometer of what is actually going on. Therefore I would contend that you need to look at it over a longer timeframe.
That said with the exception of Wales and Northern Ireland I'm actually surprised how level it is - particularly given that I know how much more I would earn (and therefore how much more tax I would pay) if I moved south - but I like hills.
Back to the OP, its interesting when you read these stats that Scotland income and expenditure are about equal, there has always been a general belief down south that it subsidises the Scottish economy. But as a general indication it appears not true from these figures.
As said before the problem with statistics is there are lies, damn lies, then statistics (apologies for what is surely a misquote)..
Good post.