Sugar Babies
Shemales

Author Topic: Boosting the Economy via Punting  (Read 2115 times)

Offline Markus

Who says we are not doing our bit for the economy:

External Link/Members Only

Remember that next time you punt  :drinks:

SirFrank

  • Guest
How much of that goes to the taxman? My guess is less than they get from those thieving cunts in Take That

vorian

  • Guest
I have always said that people forget how much spending power a site like UKP can influence.  Also how many lurkers check out this site everyday even it is only reaches 5% of punters that is still a he'll of a lot of money and growing each day.

Offline Markus


SirFrank, unless it goes back to their home countries it still comes to the taxman in the form of VAT or other taxes. Given that most WGs enjoy some form of excess be it smoking, drinking or just plain shopping for shoes some of it does come back.

I'd be interested to figure out just how they came to the amount of £10 billion though.


Jay-Jay

  • Guest
"I'd be interested to figure out just how they came to the amount of £10 billion though."

They made it up of course. Most stats are unprovable/wildly inaccurate anyway so articles like this just stick a good sounding number in.

Jay

vorian

  • Guest
"I'd be interested to figure out just how they came to the amount of £10 billion though."

They made it up of course. Most stats are unprovable/wildly inaccurate anyway so articles like this just stick a good sounding number in.

Jay

You can download on PDF all the information relating to the subject linked from the original article if anything it appears they have a cautious approach and the figures given are quite low end.

Offline Markus


Does the £10 billion include extras like CIM and Anal?  :hi:

Offline Jimmyredcab

"I'd be interested to figure out just how they came to the amount of £10 billion though."

They made it up of course. Most stats are unprovable/wildly inaccurate anyway so articles like this just stick a good sounding number in.

Jay

Agree, those figures are just picked out of the air   --- just like when they tell us how much is lost in benefit fraud, truth is they don't have a fucking clue.   :bomb:

Offline wristjob

How much of that goes to the taxman? My guess is less than they get from those thieving cunts in Take That

Does it even matter, it all gets to the tax man eventually.

I pay a girl £100 and she gives the taxman £25 and spends £75 down Greggs and Debenhams

or

She declares nothing and just spends more money down Greggs and Debenhams, and thy pay tax on that...


- bah, Marcus beat me to it.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2014, 08:19:20 pm by wristjob »

vorian

  • Guest
Does it even matter, it all gets to the tax man eventually.

I pay a girl £100 and she gives the taxman £25 and spends £75 down Greggs and Debenhams

or

She declares nothing and just spends more money down Greggs and Debenhams, and thy pay tax on that...


- bah, Marcus beat me to it.

Don't forget you have already paid tax on your £100.

Offline wristjob

 ;)

The problem is if the money goes out of circulation, like say mr Barlow shipping it to Monaco or Romanian Betty sending it back home or buying a Starbucks.

on the other band if she gets a taxi, gets a bacon butty from Greasy Lil's or pays an acountant to make sure she doesn't pay tax then she's pumping money into the local economy - what a darling.

Offline Horizontal pleasures

External Link/Members Only

Drugs and prostitution to be included in UK national accounts
Contribution of drug dealers and prostitutes to the UK economy boosted figures by £10bn according to estimates

George Osborne famously declared "we are all in this together" when it comes to Britain's prosperity. The Office for National Statistics has now taken him at his word, adding up the contribution made by prostitutes and drug dealers.

For the first time official statisticians are measuring the value to the UK economy of sex work and drug dealing – and they have discovered these unsavoury hidden-economy trades make roughly the same contribution as farming – and only slightly less than book and newspaper publishers added together.

Illegal drugs and prostitution boosted the economy by £9.7bn – equal to 0.7% of gross domestic product – in 2009, according to the ONS's first official estimate.

A breakdown of the data shows sex work generated £5.3bn for the economy that year, with another £4.4bn lift from a combination of cannabis, heroin, powder cocaine, crack cocaine, ecstasy and amphetamines.

According to the estimates there were 60,879 prostitutes in the UK in 2009, who had an average of 25 clients per week – each paying on average £67.16 per visit.

There is also detailed data on drugs. The statisticians reckon there were 2.2 million cannabis users in the UK in 2009, toking their way through weed worth more than £1.2bn. They calculate that half of that was home-grown – costing £154m in heat, light and "raw materials" to produce.

The ONS will work in the coming months to bring the data more up to date. The figures will then be included in the broad category of household spending on "miscellaneous goods and services" alongside life insurance, personal care products and post office charges.

The more inclusive approach brings the ONS into line with European Union rules, and will eventually allow comparisons of the size of the shadow economy in different member states.

Joe Grice, chief economic adviser at the ONS, said: "As economies develop and evolve, so do the statistics we use to measure them. These improvements are going on across the world and we are working with our partners in Europe and the wider world on the same agenda.

"Here in the UK these reforms will help ONS to continue delivering the best possible economic statistics to inform key decisions in government and business."

The new elements will be published in the national accounts from September onwards, supplementing the more traditional measures of GDP including construction and manufacturing output. By comparison, the construction sector contributed around £90bn to the UK economy in 2009, and manufacturing £150bn.

The ONS said that in every year between 1997 and 2009 prostitution and illegal drugs boosted the economy by between £7bn and £11bn. Combined with other changes to the national accounts from September, £33bn or 2.3% will be added to the 2009 level of GDP, the ONS said.

Graeme Walker, head of national accounts for the ONS, acknowledged there were limitations to measuring the value of illegal activities to the economy, but said it was a useful exercise nevertheless.

"It's a model-based estimate but one that serves a purpose for the picture of the overall economy."

He said the ONS would attempt to "fill in the gaps" left by available studies but it would be impossible to measure illegal activities as accurately as other components of GDP. Other activities are measured using questionnaires but the response rate in the sex and drugs trades are unlikely to be high.

Alan Clarke, a UK economist at Scotiabank, said that although the government would not feel the benefit of illegal work in terms of income tax take, there would be a spending boost.

"A drug dealer or prostitute won't necessarily pay tax on that £10bn, but the government will get tax receipts when they spend their income on a pimped up car or bling phone."

Steve Pudney, professor of economics at the University of Essex, said he was sceptical about the methods used by the ONS to estimate the size of the drugs market.

"In my view, the ONS estimate of the size of the drug market is unlikely to be very accurate. It rests on some heroically large assumptions which would be difficult to test, and it also uses a measure of demand that is likely to understate systematically the true scale of drug use."

He added: "They are using a demand-side approach which loosely involves multiplying a survey estimate of the number of drug users by another estimate of the amount consumed by the average user.

"Average retail prices of drugs come from other sources – mainly police/customs/security service intelligence sources – and, multiplying this by the estimated demand, gives the size of the market in cash terms."
Report to moderator 

pokenn

  • Guest
External Link/Members Only

Drugs and prostitution to be included in UK national accounts.....

....Graeme Walker, head of national accounts for the ONS, acknowledged there were limitations to measuring the value of illegal activities to the economy, but said it was a useful exercise nevertheless.


Ignorant Walker implying that prostitution is an illegal activity.

Offline Convince Me

£67.17 per punt. There must be divisions of skanks out there plying their trade to bring the cost down to that price point.

pokenn

  • Guest
£67.17 per punt. There must be divisions of skanks out there plying their trade to bring the cost down to that price point.

Most girls charge less than that for a 30 minutes punt

Offline wristjob

£67.17 per punt. There must be divisions of skanks out there plying their trade to bring the cost down to that price point.

No shortage of £25 basic punts in the Sheffield area and the 50-70 punts are probably 5x as common as the £150/hour. The 25/week figure is probably 7-8 a day if you are at the low end and 2-3 if you are that £150+/hour girl.

Jason

  • Guest
How exactly are we boosting our economy with our OWN money? It is just money circulation within the country. It is not like UK is a major punting attraction for tourists. Not to mention that a substantial fraction of the prostitution money goes abroad (Poland, Romania, Hungary etc).

Yes money is circulated. So what? This would have happened either with prostitutes being part of the cycle or not. And is not that prostitutes are spending big anyway. Many of them are just saving. Also for the government to take from circulation what they EXPECT/WANT each link to this chain should pay directly an income tax. If the government could get as much as they needed only by VAT (and a few other taxes only) there wouldn’t be an income tax in first place. And if there wasn't then most likely VAT would be much higher.

vorian

  • Guest
Apparently some of the data, comes from %%%,  so imo the figures are worth jack shit.

Offline Markus


You're boosting the economy by spending money. I said from the outset that some of the money won't see its way back in to the hands of the taxman but that's the same with any tradesman you pay cash in hand.

The only reason these figures are actually being released is a follow on example from Italy when it included prostitution in its GDP figures in 1987, causing it to grow by 18%!!! They were trying to attract investment by falsifying their figures to make them look like they had a healthy economy. It's the same reason George Osbourne is even releasing these figures.

Offline wristjob

How exactly are we boosting our economy with our OWN money? It is just money circulation within the country. It is not like UK is a major punting attraction for tourists. Not to mention that a substantial fraction of the prostitution money goes abroad (Poland, Romania, Hungary etc).

Yes money is circulated. So what? This would have happened either with prostitutes being part of the cycle or not. And is not that prostitutes are spending big anyway. Many of them are just saving. Also for the government to take from circulation what they EXPECT/WANT each link to this chain should pay directly an income tax. If the government could get as much as they needed only by VAT (and a few other taxes only) there wouldn’t be an income tax in first place. And if there wasn't then most likely VAT would be much higher.

I doubt much of it goes abroad. Girls have living expenses and my experience of people who suddenly get a massive boost to income is as often as not it goes on luxuries.

As for boosting the economy - simples. If a girl sits on her bum watching Jezza Kyle then she contributes nothing to society - no arguments thee surely. If a girl goes and shags someone for an hour and gets paid £100 there's still the same amount of money in circulation, the girl fritters it away rather than the guy so it still gets spent but on the whole she provided a service so there's more "stuff" out there, even if it's ephemeral stuff like shagging. She enriched society. Please don't laugh, cos she did - or put another way if there were 10x as many WGs out there, 10x more choice, 10x as many sexy girls - do you think that would have enriched society?

Persie

  • Guest
You also need to think about the value add element.

It works like this. Factor inputs: make up, hair, rent clothes cost 1000 pcm. She rakes in £1200 pcm. She has just created value. She spends £1000 again for her business and spends her £200 which generates value for the people she spends it with.

Its a virtuous cycle  :yahoo:

Jason

  • Guest
Yes I know how it goes. More jobs result to more people having money to spend on products and services, and this increases GDP. And as prostitution is a service resulting to money exchange it “increases” GDP. And since they will subsequently spend part of this money for taxed products and taxed services it increases GDP. Of course as GDP per capita goes since most prossies are foreigners the relative boost in the GDP per capita is smaller from what it would be without them as the greater GDP is now divided by a larger number but that is another story.

But the problem in the above prevailing GDP logic is that it is a question mark how (plain) GDP would really be without a prostitution world at all. If I didn't spend my money on prostitutes -a tax free transaction- (with a person earning so much that will inevitably save and/or ship some of it abroad) I would spend it on something else MYSELF (and pay tax myself) or deposit it in a bank and spend it later MYSELF on something bigger –like buying a new house (and again pay tax myself). Also without prossies you would have to chase civvies (or having a mistress outside marriage, etc). This also requires spending –and perhaps even more than you do on prossies.

That is why in my previous post I referred to the country’s wealth. Spending money or depositing it inside the borders of a country results to zero change in the country’s total wealth. It’s just a cycle/conversion. What DOES change a country’s wealth is bringing or sending money from/to abroad. And with foreign prostitutes the total wealth in UK actually decreases as money IS sent abroad. If you think that the amount of money sent is not significant and that prossies prefer to spend it on luxuries in UK then you haven’t met the likes of Noelia18 who brags about her prossie multi-digit income and savings all the time: External Link/Members Only
« Last Edit: May 30, 2014, 08:47:03 pm by Jason »

willbred

  • Guest
What an absolute load of bollocks. Can't speak for the drug industry but prossies - OK, they spend on condoms, mobiles and top ups ,lingerie, clothes, beauty products ( some of 'em) wet wipes and feckin lube. As Sir Frank says, nada to the taxman. But I'll still keep payin 'em !!!

Persie

  • Guest
Yes I know how it goes. More jobs result to more people having money to spend on products and services, and this increases GDP. And as prostitution is a service resulting to money exchange it “increases” GDP. And since they will subsequently spend part of this money for taxed products and taxed services it increases GDP. Of course as GDP per capita goes since most prossies are foreigners the relative boost in the GDP per capita is smaller from what it would be without them as the greater GDP is now divided by a larger number but that is another story.

But the problem in the above prevailing GDP logic is that it is a question mark how (plain) GDP would really be without a prostitution world at all. If I didn't spend my money on prostitutes -a tax free transaction- (with a person earning so much that will inevitably save and/or ship some of it abroad) I would spend it on something else MYSELF (and pay tax myself) or deposit it in a bank and spend it later MYSELF on something bigger –like buying a new house (and again pay tax myself). Also without prossies you would have to chase civvies (or having a mistress outside marriage, etc). This also requires spending –and perhaps even more than you do on prossies.

That is why in my previous post I referred to the country’s wealth. Spending money or depositing it inside the borders of a country results to zero change in the country’s total wealth. It’s just a cycle/conversion. What DOES change a country’s wealth is bringing or sending money from/to abroad. And with foreign prostitutes the total wealth in UK actually decreases as money IS sent abroad. If you think that the amount of money sent is not significant and that prossies prefer to spend it on luxuries in UK then you haven’t met the likes of Noelia18 who brags about her prossie multi-digit income and savings all the time: External Link/Members Only

you need to bear in mind businesses that have higher margins will generate a greater increase in wealth so if your alternative is to spend the same money in a higher margin business, this is better for our economy.

The other aspect is the propensity to spend if a prossie has a higher propensity to lend that it being sat in a bank or lent by a bank, then it is better in the hands of the prossie

So in a long winded way, its not neutral

Offline wristjob

As with most things nowadays we have to import prostitutes because ones made in the UK are rubbish  :lol:

In reality while there may be a lot of EE escorts I think most of them are at the lower end of the price scale. if the money does go abroad I would guess less percentage of any girls earnings end up overseas than the wholesale cost of Apple's latest tat, a German car etc etc.

Point is prossies are a service industry like any other so why would it not count?

One other point is the high end girls - the ones catering for the well heeled city banker types. It's one of the industries that drag the money from such people into general circulation so actually the impact there is probably quite big.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2014, 11:56:05 am by wristjob »

Offline Jimmyredcab



Point is prossies are a service industry like any other so why would it not count?


Because the black economy is no good to any country, Italy and Greece are good examples.    :thumbsdown:

Offline wristjob

Because the black economy is no good to any country, Italy and Greece are good examples.    :thumbsdown:

Why?

Curious6705

  • Guest
As consumer spending makes up the majority of UK GDP why not include sex?  :cool:

Offline Jimmyredcab

Why?

Simple answer.
In the black economy no tax is paid, that is why Greece is bankrupt to the tune of billions.     :hi:

Take this example.
Bob the builder does a job off the books for £100.

He spends the £100 on a prossie.

She gives the £100 to her drug supplier.

The drug supplier buys stolen goods for £100.


So we have a total of £400 spent and not a single penny paid in tax.     :thumbsdown:

Offline kowalski

I have often wondered how much cash is generated from prostitution and estimated it to be billions based on 10000 prozzies doing 500 quid a day for 300 days  year.As it's all cash the revenue are losing out on billions.The only way to tax it would be draconian measures on bank accounts or Western Union money transfers. We are not a police state yet and itd a different profession to track.Until mobile phone ot email tapping becomes the norm the government have a hard task.Until then they will hound me for £6 underpayment on my self assessment.

Offline Markus


I don't want to go in to the tax element of this again but both government and councils need spending reviews teams to manage their affairs.

I was talking to a roofer the other day and during the glorious days of Tony Blairs reign, he was being paid £1000 a week from the council to patch bits of feld to existing flat roofs. £1000 a week. The guy said it was the easiest job he ever had and most weeks he did sod all.

Back to prostitution and the whole point of these figures is to boost our GDP using fictional figures to attract overseas investment. They had similar figures for drugs and counterfeit cigarettes.


Offline wristjob

Simple answer.
In the black economy no tax is paid, that is why Greece is bankrupt to the tune of billions.     :hi:

Take this example.
Bob the builder does a job off the books for £100.

He spends the £100 on a prossie.

She gives the £100 to her drug supplier.

The drug supplier buys stolen goods for £100.


So we have a total of £400 spent and not a single penny paid in tax.     :thumbsdown:

Exactly, 3 people got what they want so the prossie keeps shagging, the drug dealer keeps dealing, the thief keeps thieving (not that I'm condoning all those activities) and eventually somebody goes and spends the full £100 at a business that will pay tax - eventually the full amount reaches the taxman.

Offline wristjob


I was talking to a roofer the other day and during the glorious days of Tony Blairs reign, he was being paid £1000 a week from the council to patch bits of feld to existing flat roofs. £1000 a week. The guy said it was the easiest job he ever had and most weeks he did sod all.


Roofing is easy work, mostly you sit there pissing about, and it pays well. It's also bloody dangerous, probably no fun whatsoever in wind, rain, snow and probably hot days too. Definitely not fun if you drop a hammer on the head of the guy holding your ladder too. There's a reason why loads of builders are happy to earn half the money closer to the ground