Offshoring - The Moral & Economic Case

[AtW]

The core of your argument is completely wrong. 55k ICT's did not lead to 55k UK redundancies.

What does it lead to, job creation or something?

55k is actually a pretty high number - how does it compare with say PCG membership base, greatly exceeds it I reckon?

The real issue I think is that these guys don't actually have long term residence goals - very much unlike those who came to this country (like myself) 10 years ago, for me the whole point was getting permanent residence, these guys are likely to have short term goals, so for them low salary here, bad conditions are temporary because when they get back in India they'll have much better life.

Consequently this sort of policy can actually cause structural problems. This is really piss take, the same way as this offshore 3.5% thingy - response from Govt should be the same because both schemes deprive CoE of serious tax revenues, and 55k people underpaying just £2k tax per year would actually result in as much damage to taxpayer as this BN66 thingy, effectively taxpayer is really taking it big time so much as suddenly offshore scheme costs become laughable.

[pzz76077]

If the work could be done in India, they wouldn't be here. The cost of an onshore worker is far higher than a worker in India.

Its a no brainer and you are confusing cost with value.

One of the key attributes lost when sending work overseas is communication. The other is skills and workplace culture transfer.

Having these ICTs on site in the UK goes a long way to removing these obstacles.

If an organization could achieve these benefits for free or a negligible increase, why wouldn't they??


I still have to ask- whats your point. Your arguments have been academic for 10 years or more now and serve no purpose.

Better you put your efforts into finding your own USP and capitalizing on it.

Bob pp
PZZ

[MPwannadecentincome]

It reminds me of the days of CND, thousands came out to protest against it, but not one of them came up with a solution or alternative to nuclear power.
Now its seen as the most environmentally friendly solution.

PZZ

CND was about DISARMAMENT not whether the power was environmentally friendly or not!

[MPwannadecentincome]

IMO each business will do what they think is best for them, local, near shore far shore whatever.


In my line of work and in interviews I am attending I am seeing more and more companies using local skills where it is really needed rather than trying to outsource and even bringing back things that were previously outsourced.

[pzz76077]

What does it lead to, job creation or something?

55k is actually a pretty high number - how does it compare with say PCG membership base, greatly exceeds it I reckon?

The real issue I think is that these guys don't actually have long term residence goals - very much unlike those who came to this country (like myself) 10 years ago, for me the whole point was getting permanent residence, these guys are likely to have short term goals, so for them low salary here, bad conditions are temporary because when they get back in India they'll have much better life.

Consequently this sort of policy can actually cause structural problems. This is really piss take, the same way as this offshore 3.5% thingy - response from Govt should be the same because both schemes deprive CoE of serious tax revenues, and 55k people underpaying just £2k tax per year would actually result in as much damage to taxpayer as this BN66 thingy, effectively taxpayer is really taking it big time so much as suddenly offshore scheme costs become laughable.

Long term residence goals- whats that all about??
Its a bit like saying all contractors should get permanent jobs because its better for the UK.

Bob pp
PZZ

[EternalOptimist]

how tall are you PZZ ? about 3 foot six I reckon.


a lot of points seem to go right over your head

[AtW]

Better you put your efforts into finding your own USP and capitalizing on it.

Sure, people need to do this in any case, problem is that the scale of destruction is getting bigger and bigger: this isn't some kind of remote problem with some "suckers" being fired, this stuff happens every where and it affects the economy - pubs are closing down, this is partly due to insane tied tenants system in the UK, but also (in my view) problem with demand - when people can't afford booze in a pub then it is a problem!

I am actually beginning to have second thoughts about this BN66 debacle, sure it's a tax dodge (in my view), however if HMRC says the cost to taxpayer was £100 mln over many years, then let's look at 55000 employed at most certainly below market level salaries. Let's just run some calculations:

Let's say average IT salary of £35k via PAYE resulting in tax related deductions of £9k (used PAYE calcualtor).

So that's 55000 x £9k tax, or nearly £500 mln per year.

These people are replaced by £25k pa chaps, let's say they actually pay full tax rather than go back home in 6 months, so that will be £6k tax paid, or £3k loss of tax per year.

Total annual tax loss - £150 mln. A lot more if some creative accounting is used.

This is based on assumption that those guys will replace 55k jobs, which is certainly wrong but I don't think there is no taxpayer loss of money.

[pzz76077]

CND was about DISARMAMENT not whether the power was environmentally friendly or not!

They disagree: http://www.cnduk.org/index.php/campa...ear-power.html

Anyway my point was that it is easy to complain about something, any fool can do that. Solutions take much more.

PZZ

[AtW]

Long term residence goals- whats that all about??

That means I came to this country with desire to stay here permanently - this means I'd have same cost base and would price myself accordingly.

If goals are short term - get some money regardless if that would be enough for pension. mortgage or to go get drunk with mates in a pub regularly, then suddenly pricing of that person would be very different because they won't have long term costs associated with being in this country.

Note here - I think visa program should be used to attract real top talent but they should be paid very well with minimum salary being at least £35-40k, maybe more.

[pzz76077]

Sure, people need to do this in any case, problem is that the scale of destruction is getting bigger and bigger: this isn't some kind of remote problem with some "suckers" being fired, this stuff happens every where and it affects the economy - pubs are closing down, this is partly due to insane tied tenants system in the UK, but also (in my view) problem with demand - when people can't afford booze in a pub then it is a problem!

I am actually beginning to have second thoughts about this BN66 debacle, sure it's a tax dodge (in my view), however if HMRC says the cost to taxpayer was £100 mln over many years, then let's look at 55000 employed at most certainly below market level salaries. Let's just run some calculations:

Let's say average IT salary of £35k via PAYE resulting in tax related deductions of £9k (used PAYE calcualtor).

So that's 55000 x £9k tax, or nearly £500 mln per year.

These people are replaced by £25k pa chaps, let's say they actually pay full tax rather than go back home in 6 months, so that will be £6k tax paid, or £3k loss of tax per year.

Total annual tax loss - £150 mln. A lot more if some creative accounting is used.

This is based on assumption that those guys will replace 55k jobs, which is certainly wrong but I don't think there is no taxpayer loss of money.

Whats the point of UK gov receiving 150m, they will only waste it on something stupid like another dumb IT project that makes everyones life a misery.

PZZ