Johnson makes an order of magnitude error

[BeElBeeBub]

If you read down this article it claims that the 900m figure is the cost over 4 years.  Why 4 years?  no idea?



They say that it would cost £35m (even less than your estimate) for NHS workers abut significnatly more for all care workers.  Presumably there would then be calls to include all key workers.  I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of people paying this charge could be loosely classified as "key workers" for pandemic type purposes.



To me this charge seems to be completely immoral and abhorrent if the people are already paying UK NI and Tax, but that's just me.  I suspect it was a knee jerk reaction to a small number of cases of health tourism.

Well it seems that, despite the government's protestations that it was too expensive to consider, they have now U turned and cancelled it(*)



Just hours before changing course the government were not only standing firm but actually planning on on increasing the charge.

The government has defended charging overseas health workers to use the NHS, despite criticism from its own party.



The health immigration surcharge on non-EU migrants is £400 per year and set to rise to £624 in October.



Some Tory MPs have called for NHS and care workers to be exempt as a way of saying "thank you" for their work during the coronavirus outbreak.



But the PM's spokesman said the money "goes directly back into the NHS to help save lives".

(BBC)



(*) Or rather: they have said they will cancel it. With this government we need to watch they don't mean something like "we will cancel it from the end of the next parliament for workers that arrive after 2040" or some such evasion.

[Javert]

If we assume £90m is the correct amount for all NHS workers, the average NHS worker would need a family of 10 to make the figure up to £900m



Seems a bit of a stretch.



It's plausible the £900m refers to the total the scheme generates (implying around 1.3m people required to pay the charge)



But that's an irrelevant figure in the discussion of whether NHS workers should pay it.



Johnson was either confused or (nearly as bad) trying to misuse figures.



"Maybe we should cut VAT on women's sanitary products?"



"Well it(*) raises over £130bn a year so it's difficult".



(*) All VAT raises £130bn, VAT on sanitary products raises about £15m.

If you read down this article it claims that the 900m figure is the cost over 4 years.  Why 4 years?  no idea?



They say that it would cost £35m (even less than your estimate) for NHS workers abut significnatly more for all care workers.  Presumably there would then be calls to include all key workers.  I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of people paying this charge could be loosely classified as "key workers" for pandemic type purposes.



To me this charge seems to be completely immoral and abhorrent if the people are already paying UK NI and Tax, but that's just me.  I suspect it was a knee jerk reaction to a small number of cases of health tourism.

[BeElBeeBub]

Update - it may be that the 900m figure is because the entire family of that person each has to pay it.

If we assume £90m is the correct amount for all NHS workers, the average NHS worker would need a family of 10 to make the figure up to £900m



Seems a bit of a stretch.



It's plausible the £900m refers to the total the scheme generates (implying around 1.3m people required to pay the charge)



But that's an irrelevant figure in the discussion of whether NHS workers should pay it.



Johnson was either confused or (nearly as bad) trying to misuse figures.



"Maybe we should cut VAT on women's sanitary products?"



"Well it(*) raises over £130bn a year so it's difficult".



(*) All VAT raises £130bn, VAT on sanitary products raises about £15m.

[Borg Refinery]

Expect this to be ignored, downplayed or dismissed.



When Diane Babble-Bot gets things wrong they jump all over her, but people like 'Priti Vacant' and her home office are actually celebrated for their innumeracy. 🤔



https://fullfact.org/immigration/home-office-unskilled-migrants/">https://fullfact.org/immigration/home-o ... -migrants/">https://fullfact.org/immigration/home-office-unskilled-migrants/



Claim

Home Office figures suggest new immigration rules will mean a reduction in unskilled EU migration of 90,000.



Conclusion

The number of unskilled EU migrants coming to work in the UK is already less than 90,000, so the government cannot cut it by 90,000 with changes to immigration rules.

[Javert]

Update - it may be that the 900m figure is because the entire family of that person each has to pay it.

[Javert]

Maybe an error by Johnson but I find it difficult to believe they haven't all discussed this, so surely he was briefed on it?



I agree that the 900m figure was preposterous and should be challenged as it doesn't make any sense.



Is maybe the 900m based on an assumption that it's not feasible to scrap this surcharge only for care workers and they would basically have to scrap it completely?  



The other thing that puzzles me is this if this really isn't a huge deal in financial terms, it seems like a strange hill to choose to die on.



My instinct tells me that few people, even hardline tories, will object to this surcharge being scrapped, at least for people working in NHS and care professions.  Given the amount of money they have been throwing around recently this seems like small change.



Am I really to believe that scrapping this surcharge for care workers would be an unpopular move?

[BeElBeeBub]

Today Johnson said the NHS immigrant surcharge raised £900m a year, a genuinely substantial sum of money around 0.7% of the NHS budget.



If that were true there would be real trade offs in removing that surcharge.



It turns out the figure is closer to £90m a year, a trifling sum, probably less than the government wanted on their contact tracing app efforts so far.



I'm willing to bet Johnson made a simple order of magnitude error - misunderstood £90m for £900m.



Hah Ha very funny.  Apart from the almost certain silence from the same press who went nuts when Diane Abbot made a similar cock up, no harm no foul.  



but OoM errors can be very damaging.



Did Johnson misread the imperial report and think 500 deaths rather than 500,000?



I would hope not, but both him and the current government don't instil confidence that it didn't happen.



After all they were happy to claim (probably falsely) that they didn't join the EU procurement program because they missed the email....