Cookie Notice

However, this blog is a US service and this site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and analyze traffic. Your IP address and user-agent are shared with Google along with performance and security metrics to ensure quality of service, generate usage statistics, and to detect and address abuse.

Tuesday, 10 July 2012

Guardianistas seek national destruction

A delve into that nasty tax-avoiding little rag the 'Guardian' often leaves one with the desire for a wash and a change of shirt, but never more so than when the grubby Gee turns its malicious eye on our national institutions. As incomprehensible as it seems to the rag's facile journos, institutions such as the Lords and the City of London are there because they work and serve this country well. Today two fatuous scribblers under the names of Nick Mathiason and Melanie Newman give their readers a distorted and misrepresentative take on the City. Yes, the Remembrancer does sit in Parliament. Yes, the Corporation does put on an annual blow-out for the commercial gents. Two facts, though, are signally absent; that the City contributes £64bn in tax annually to the UK, and that it employs 1.1 million workers. Take a look at this;

With Wales, Northern Ireland, the North East, the North West, Yorks and Humber all spending some £2,000 per head on average per year more than they collect in tax, the City's tax-take subsidises some 32,000,000 citizens in the less prosperous regions. That's 32m who would have to pay an extra £167 a month each in tax if the City didn't pay it.

But with the Guardian's piss-poor circulation plumbing new depths it might just be that it's former readers have already worked out what a crap newspaper it is.


Greg Tingey said...

Source for that very interesting block-graph, please?

Anonymous said...

Great comment, I hate the Guardian, though, I hate its readers, contributers and vastly overstated disproportionate influence far more.

Sean said...

never mind big job losses coming at the groan shortly.

Ian R Thorpe said...

I love the way these lefties always demand sources for information that is plastered all over the public domainV news or read decent papers?

Greg Tingey said...

I R Thorpe
(No relation of Jeremy, I hope?)
I asked a polite question.
You insult me with an untrue allegation.

I find it interesting that Scotland is apparently a lot less of a supposed "subsidy junkie" than is often alleged.
But Wales is really bad.
Of course, one would then have to re-multiply those figures by the regional populations to get an absolute figure - which would also be interesting .....

Elby the Beserk said...

Hey Greg - know what I did?

I googled

who benefits net regional balance

and found the source in less than a minute.

Have you tried Google? It's really quite good.

Anonymous said...

The graph is 2006/7. God only knows what it looks like now, especially with the big 4 struggling for profit.

I do undertsnd its meaning though and I understand how much the City contributes and maybe it serves as a warning for any country that wants to put its eggs all in one (capital) basket. Not wise.

The effect is being felt up north right now, houses that were once £100k are now changing hands for 50. Still, it might help the first time buyer if only banks would lend.

Jeez, our economy is a basket case!

Coney Island

Budgie said...

Actually it is the rest of the UK that subsidises London in particular, and by extension the South East.

The majority of taxes get sucked into London from all over the country. Some of this sticks to the fingers of the Ministries in London. But, of course, this doesn't count. After all "wages" look better in the propaganda stakes than "spending".

The other 50% of GDP, the private sector, has the same model: earnings in the provinces remitted to head office in London (where all the high salary people award each other grotesque 'remuneration packages').

Greg Tingey said...

Or deluded .....

But then, London has always been the largest single contributor to the British & English economy.
At the start of the 18thC it was an even bigger proportion .....

Wonder if the areas regional populations as defined by the graph are shown?
The you could work out the total figures.
I'll get back to you on that one, if I don't get distracted ....

Greg Tingey said...

Right ... it's the Oxford Economics review, and includes the pretty block-graph, but no population figures ....
So let's see, shall we?

ONS is NOT helpful
Lots of data by county, but not by region.....

Budgie said...

It's always funny seeing the lemon sucking when a delusion is unmasked. London drains the cash from the rest of the UK, and then deigns to "subsidise" the provinces.

But whilst the money is in London all the operators (private and public) get their mitts on it. It's just called 'salaries' when London takes its cut, so it sounds better.

Greg Tingey said...


Either you are lying, or you are badly deluded.

Budgie said...

Greg Tingey - you will have to overcome your compulsion of calling anyone who disagrees with you a liar. You need some therapy!

G. Tingey said...

In this case the figures speak for themselves.
London turns a huge profit for the rest of the country.

ANd you point-blank refuse to believe that fact.
Therefore, you are deluded.
Prove me wrong, or shut up.

Budgie said...

Prove to me that a majority of tax money does not flow to London. Prove it or shut up yourself, you deluded liar (hey, this is easy - just call people liars and deluded and you win arguments; how about that?)