4 ms·

Nonsense. London is a net taxpayer for the UK [1], hence the periodical discussion of establishing an independent city state (which will not happen IMO). Instea

by ptype 9y ago

Nonsense. London is a net taxpayer for the UK [1], hence the periodical discussion of establishing an independent city state (which will not happen IMO). Instead of being jealous of London, the rest of the UK would be better off realising that London competes with other global cities and that the success of London benefits UK (but sadly instead they voted for Brexit) [1] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/23/uk-budget-deficit-grows-to-more-than-10bn-as-people-spend-less https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/23/uk-budget-d...

dredmorbius 9y ago
And what rents does that tax-paying capacity derive from? Extracted from whom?
- nine_k 9y ago
  Global trade? Production? Tourism?
  - Silhouette 9y ago
    More like farming, harvesting of other natural resources and electricity generation, long-distance transport infrastructure, warehousing, and actual housing for many of the people who commute into London every day to provide vital labour but can't afford to live there. London makes a lot of money because it's dominated by high-return service industries, most famously the financial sector based in the City. It includes relatively little in the way of production, manufacturing and storage, which don't scale as well but are obviously essential to everything else being possible.
    - _benedict 9y ago
      Farming? Are you mad? It contributes as little as 0.5% of the country's GDP. What other natural resources are being "harvested" to enrich London so much? The vast majority of London commuters live in Greater London, so its housing is largely provided for by itself. Even if you assumed every human being in the "commuter belt" travelled to London daily, the GLA would still account for ~73% of the population, and this is plainly an absurd assumption. While London may not contribute as much manufacturing, it still manages ~6% of the UK's manufacturing output. At the same time, just retail in London produces almost as much for the economy as rUK manufacturing. Your whole thesis is laughable. You seem to be upset that the poorer parts of the nation can trade with London to provide it goods and services. Should you not be upset at the farming, storage and transportation rUK "harvests" from abroad? This dwarfs London's "harvesting" of rUK. London itself has nothing to do with profits from this trade being unequally distributed. Westminster, sure, but London? No.
      - Silhouette 9y ago
        Farming? Are you mad? It contributes as little as 0.5% of the country's GDP. Not everything is about GDP. You belittle farming, but without food to eat, Londoners would not be generating a lot of economic output at all. The original point here was that London generates disproportionate tax revenues, but only because it is home to more scalable service industries and relies on the less lucrative but essential supplies and infrastructure from elsewhere. What other natural resources are being "harvested" to enrich London so much? Almost none of the UK's electricity supply originates within London, even if we take that to mean Greater London. London also has no major sources for fuels. Your whole thesis is laughable. You seem to be upset Why would I be upset about anything? I only commented that London is able to generate disproportionate tax returns because it's service-based and relies on the rest of the UK for support. That's not a "thesis", it's a simple economic fact, and everything I've mentioned in support it of is readily verifiable for the price of a Google search.
        _benedict 9y ago
        and relies on the less lucrative but essential supplies and infrastructure from elsewhere As does rUK, with rWorld. As do most UK cities with rUK. Similarly with farming; London _and rUK_ can (and do) fulfil a significant quantity of their demand from abroad; it is possible to fulfil more. I do not belittle farming, but trading for food does not equal "extracting rents" as the OP you were responding to requested, and nor does farming constitute a huge industry rUK is somehow being defrauded of the profits for. Almost none of the UK's electricity supply originates within London Energy production is not a natural resource. The only "rUK" resource we input is Gas, but it's not clear how much of rUK can claim to be losing out here. Most of rUK would not be the natural "owners" of this resource, and - again - it is traded on the open market, so can be fulfilled from elsewhere. Why would I be upset To rephrase/reconsider: you seem to somehow confuse trade with rent extraction, unless you simply did not read the OP's point of contention you were contributing to. If this were to be true, rUK would be one of the world's worst perpetuators of this form of wrong, given its greater dependency on rWorld in exactly the manners you describe.
        9y ago
isostatic 9y ago
A lot of London's net tax income comes from the way taxes for country-wide businesses land in their HQ, which is more often than not London (or at least the south east).

by ptype 9y ago

dredmorbius 9y ago

And what rents does that tax-paying capacity derive from? Extracted from whom?

nine_k 9y ago
Global trade? Production? Tourism?
- Silhouette 9y ago
  More like farming, harvesting of other natural resources and electricity generation, long-distance transport infrastructure, warehousing, and actual housing for many of the people who commute into London every day to provide vital labour but can't afford to live there. London makes a lot of money because it's dominated by high-return service industries, most famously the financial sector based in the City. It includes relatively little in the way of production, manufacturing and storage, which don't scale as well but are obviously essential to everything else being possible.
  - _benedict 9y ago
    Farming? Are you mad? It contributes as little as 0.5% of the country's GDP. What other natural resources are being "harvested" to enrich London so much? The vast majority of London commuters live in Greater London, so its housing is largely provided for by itself. Even if you assumed every human being in the "commuter belt" travelled to London daily, the GLA would still account for ~73% of the population, and this is plainly an absurd assumption. While London may not contribute as much manufacturing, it still manages ~6% of the UK's manufacturing output. At the same time, just retail in London produces almost as much for the economy as rUK manufacturing. Your whole thesis is laughable. You seem to be upset that the poorer parts of the nation can trade with London to provide it goods and services. Should you not be upset at the farming, storage and transportation rUK "harvests" from abroad? This dwarfs London's "harvesting" of rUK. London itself has nothing to do with profits from this trade being unequally distributed. Westminster, sure, but London? No.
    - Silhouette 9y ago
      Farming? Are you mad? It contributes as little as 0.5% of the country's GDP. Not everything is about GDP. You belittle farming, but without food to eat, Londoners would not be generating a lot of economic output at all. The original point here was that London generates disproportionate tax revenues, but only because it is home to more scalable service industries and relies on the less lucrative but essential supplies and infrastructure from elsewhere. What other natural resources are being "harvested" to enrich London so much? Almost none of the UK's electricity supply originates within London, even if we take that to mean Greater London. London also has no major sources for fuels. Your whole thesis is laughable. You seem to be upset Why would I be upset about anything? I only commented that London is able to generate disproportionate tax returns because it's service-based and relies on the rest of the UK for support. That's not a "thesis", it's a simple economic fact, and everything I've mentioned in support it of is readily verifiable for the price of a Google search.
      - _benedict 9y ago
        and relies on the less lucrative but essential supplies and infrastructure from elsewhere As does rUK, with rWorld. As do most UK cities with rUK. Similarly with farming; London _and rUK_ can (and do) fulfil a significant quantity of their demand from abroad; it is possible to fulfil more. I do not belittle farming, but trading for food does not equal "extracting rents" as the OP you were responding to requested, and nor does farming constitute a huge industry rUK is somehow being defrauded of the profits for. Almost none of the UK's electricity supply originates within London Energy production is not a natural resource. The only "rUK" resource we input is Gas, but it's not clear how much of rUK can claim to be losing out here. Most of rUK would not be the natural "owners" of this resource, and - again - it is traded on the open market, so can be fulfilled from elsewhere. Why would I be upset To rephrase/reconsider: you seem to somehow confuse trade with rent extraction, unless you simply did not read the OP's point of contention you were contributing to. If this were to be true, rUK would be one of the world's worst perpetuators of this form of wrong, given its greater dependency on rWorld in exactly the manners you describe.
        9y ago

isostatic 9y ago

A lot of London's net tax income comes from the way taxes for country-wide businesses land in their HQ, which is more often than not London (or at least the south east).