Population database will move to India

[Chrysalis]

The big question is would the income tax of 1000 people offset the cost difference, lets assume the following if in a high unemployment area.

90% of the staff previously unemployed.
JSA at £55 a week stopped x 900 x 52 = £2,574,000/year
If wage around £5.00 hour 40 hours week that makes £200 a week so 24% income tax of £200 x 900 x 52 = £2,246,400
Total gain to government £4,820,400/year (£12,051,000 over 30 months)

I have been conservative here this is assuming people would be only claiming JSA no other benefit and the wages paid are low so Income tax gain is low and I have also not included NI taxes and other gains to the economy. I think 90% is realistic in a high unemployment area because people are unlikely to leave current employment for a temporary job of low wage. So was the saving's under 12 million GBP? I would think it probably was but would like to know if anyone has figures anywhere,

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

The big question is would the income tax of 1000 people offset the cost difference, lets assume the following if in a high unemployment area.

90% of the staff previously unemployed.
JSA at £55 a week stopped x 900 x 52 = £2,574,000/year
If wage around £5.00 hour 40 hours week that makes £200 a week so 24% income tax of £200 x 900 x 52 = £2,246,400
Total gain to government £4,820,400/year (£12,051,000 over 30 months)

I have been conservative here this is assuming people would be only claiming JSA no other benefit and the wages paid are low so Income tax gain is low and I have also not included NI taxes and other gains to the economy. I think 90% is realistic in a high unemployment area because people are unlikely to leave current employment for a temporary job of low wage. So was the saving's under 12 million GBP? I would think it probably was but would like to know if anyone has figures anywhere,

Of course the cost (in wages paid) to the government in this somewhat idealised scenario would be 200 * 52 * 900 =£ 9,360,000 so the net cost would be slightly under £5,000,000. So you should compare this to the cost of outsourcing.

Also, the tax benefits will be half of what you calculated, as you forgot the (almost) £5,000 personal allowance, which is nearly half the annual salary of someone on £200 a week.

Having said that, you're right that these are effects that should be taken into consideration when these decisions are made.

Originally Posted by danielf

Of course the cost (in wages paid) to the government in this somewhat idealised scenario would be 200 * 52 * 900 =£ 9,360,000 so the net cost would be slightly under £5,000,000. So you should compare this to the cost of outsourcing.

Also, the tax benefits will be half of what you calculated, as you forgot the (almost) £5,000 personal allowance, which is nearly half the annual salary of someone on £200 a week.

Having said that, you're right that these are effects that should be taken into consideration when these decisions are made.

Not forgetting.....90% of staff previously unemployed? Not really the nature of the labour market at present. I'm guessing the mandarins have done the sums.

[Chrysalis]

andyl the labour market pattern is not the same across all of england, you may not believe it but some areas have very high unemployment, some just under 10%.

Yes my figures are wrong the 24% isnt worked out starting from 0 sorry for that.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

andyl the labour market pattern is not the same across all of england, you may not believe it but some areas have very high unemployment, some just under 10%.

I'd still be gobsmacked if a new business recruited anything like 90% of its staff from the dole queue.

[grandmaster]

Can we send them our landfill as well?

Everything else is going...

Originally Posted by grandmaster

Can we send them our landfill as well?

Everything else is going...

http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_..._27082004.html !!

[Chris]

Originally Posted by Angua

My other half is heavily into genealogy and he has trouble deciphering what an entry in the records actually says even with the advantage of english as his native language. Goodness knows what the records will end up translated into by this method .

In fact, the inputters may be at an advantage because they are less likely to read into the bad handwriting what they think they are seeing if they have no idea what they think they are seeing!

In ancient times, some of the scribes used to copy texts such as the Bible were illiterate. They were chosen because it was impossible for them to mis-read the text they were supposed to be copying. All they could do was make identical copies of the shapes they saw on one scroll onto the new scroll they were preparing.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by andyl

I'd still be gobsmacked if a new business recruited anything like 90% of its staff from the dole queue.

Discrimination against the unemployed then? I will put another way I would expect 90% of applicants to be unemployed.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Discrimination against the unemployed then?

Not anything remotely like what I was suggesting.

I will put another way I would expect 90% of applicants to be unemployed.

Well, we can agree to differ.

[Chrysalis]

Well like I said its hard for some people to realise how deprived some areas are.

I only have 2 examples.

A friend who owns his own company had 3 positions available and had over 10 applicants all of them were unemployed, his area isnt even that high unemployment but I think its because the wage was low.

Another friend of mine who had to interview people going for a job at a company, again the job was low paid and this time in a high unemployment area he said most people going for the job were unemployed.

So I would presume if this was located in a high unemployment area and the wages were at the low end of the scale people who are currently working would not be flocking there for jobs especially as they temporary positions. However saying this I have drifted off topic and I would assume the government had done their sums and the gains to the economy and tax income would have been less then the additional cost of keeping the work in the uk.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Well like I said its hard for some people to realise how deprived some areas are.

I only have 2 examples.

A friend who owns his own company had 3 positions available and had over 10 applicants all of them were unemployed, his area isnt even that high unemployment but I think its because the wage was low.

Another friend of mine who had to interview people going for a job at a company, again the job was low paid and this time in a high unemployment area he said most people going for the job were unemployed.

So I would presume if this was located in a high unemployment area and the wages were at the low end of the scale people who are currently working would not be flocking there for jobs especially as they temporary positions. However saying this I have drifted off topic and I would assume the government had done their sums and the gains to the economy and tax income would have been less then the additional cost of keeping the work in the uk.

Fair play to you

[NitroNutter]

Surely this is against the data protection act. I have not signed anything permitting the government to house my details in another country outside the EU, therefore I do not expect them to do so. Infact I have not signed anything permitting the government to house my details outside the UK.

[tkiely]

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

Surely this is against the data protection act. I have not signed anything permitting the government to house my details in another country outside the EU,

I dont remember giving them my details in the first place!!!!!

Who wants to bet that they will send the ID card jobs to India too?

[Chrysalis]

after the current saga over the costs of ID cards its almost certian it would be done in india.