[Politics] The state of things

[Titanic]

It is clearly a minefield... but I was following the 'being kept low' line, which doesn't chime with the 'rising as % of GDP' graphs/facts.

But, yes, if you take the view that 35% is still 'low', you can argue it is being kept in the band that could be described that way. So perhaps we can agree on a formula that says "UK tax levels maybe comparatively low compared to some other countries, but are on a rising trend" ?

 

[BLOCK F]

I hope no party taxes Tony too much, we may end up in deep shit if they do.

 

[pb21]

It is clearly a minefield... but I was following the 'being kept low' line, which doesn't chime with the 'rising as % of GDP' graphs/facts.

But, yes, if you take the view that 35% is still 'low', you can argue it is being kept in the band that could be described that way. So perhaps we can agree on a formula that says "UK tax levels maybe comparatively low compared to some other countries, but are on a rising trend" ?

Not sure I agree with "'rising as % of GDP' graphs/facts". It has actually been in a downward trend since 1950, when it peaked.

Finances

The UK’s public finances have been severely affected by the coronavirus crisis. A sharp contraction of the economy in 2020 has meant much lower tax revenues, while the government has spent record sums to support public services, households and businesses. The second wave of the virus and...

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk

 

[Titanic]

Not sure I agree with "'rising as % of GDP' graphs/facts". It has actually been in a downward trend since 1950.

View attachment 154736

Finances

The UK’s public finances have been severely affected by the coronavirus crisis. A sharp contraction of the economy in 2020 has meant much lower tax revenues, while the government has spent record sums to support public services, households and businesses. The second wave of the virus and...

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk

Or you could pick any start point that is not distorted by World War 2 (1940-1960)

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

View attachment 154727

In what world is 'tax being kept low'?

That's one of the ironies. A government may make low taxation their goal, but they may find that they simply cannot lower tax below a certain level without blowing the doors in.

However your figure is grossly misleading because the units are pounds. What do the data look like as % of income? What do they look like in relation to the value of the £ at year zero (2000/1). You are no fool so I conclude you are being disingenuous by posting such a misleading figure.

Below is tax as % GDP.

None of my points are invalidated by your whataboutery

 

[rogersix]

View attachment 154727

In what world is 'tax being kept low'?

The real world

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Well, its lower than 800 billion, or ~15% GDP.

Depends on what you define as low, for you its too high, for someone else its too low.

Thread has been derailed by titanic's whataboutery. This is what they do, the tories. Give it another hour and we will all be believing that We Have Never Had It So Good.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Can I gently remind you that your entry to this thread wasn't whether it was rising or not, it was whether it's low or not!

Great swerve though - are you a professional politician?

I also wouldn't take any current budget forecasts with anything other than a very large pinch of salt, certainly when projected beyond the next General Election. We'll almost certainly have a new government and they won't look to retain the status quo.

You are normally extraordinarily more measured and insightful than me over subtle and nuanced issues, and it pleases me no end that your reaction to the whataboutery post was exactly the same as mine

 

[rogersix]

a while back i accepted there needs to be more taxes if we are to maintain or have more services. i was surprised when a Tory government introduced tax rises they had often opposed. imagine the confusion when Labour rejected this. then further confusion as they complained we had the highest ever taxes (true), made up of rises to NI corporation tax and fiscal drag on higher rate earners.

Labour wont make a clear case for broad tax rises. they are so scared of reaction to that they wont, they will instead rely on minor taxes around the margins, leaving them wide open unfunded spending promises.

Politics is the art of the possible, get in power first, do what you want to sharpish (before it all goes inevitably wrong), and then be judged by the history books!

 

[Nobby]

Thread has been derailed by titanic's whataboutery. This is what they do, the tories. Give it another hour and we will all be believing that We Have Never Had It So Good.

. Indeed

 

[Titanic]

That's one of the ironies. A government may make low taxation their goal, but they may find that they simply cannot lower tax below a certain level without blowing the doors in.

However your figure is grossly misleading because the units are pounds. What do the data look like as % of income? What do they look like in relation to the value of the £ at year zero (2000/1). You are no fool so I conclude you are being disingenuous by posting such a misleading figure.

Below is tax as % GDP.

None of my points are invalidated by your whataboutery

View attachment 154737

So is that saying it was basically a flat line for the past 20 years, and the same in the 10 Labour/Blair/Brown years as it has been since under the Tories? or is it more subtle than that?

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Politics is the art of the possible, get in power first, do what you want to sharpish (before it all goes inevitably wrong), and then be judged by the history books!

Ideally, get your mates to write the history books for you.

 

[Titanic]

Thread has been derailed by titanic's whataboutery. This is what they do, the tories. Give it another hour and we will all be believing that We Have Never Had It So Good.

It wasn't intended as 'whataboutery'... so I will leave you guys to it.

 

[Stato]

The first rule of Life Club - Do not under any circumstances listen to Radio 2.

Gus Poyet?

(I seem to remember that our former boss was, in his playing days, nicknamed 'The Radio' because he never shut up. When he was at Chelsea, his moniker was altered to 'Radio 2' to distinguish him from 'Radio 1': Dennis Wise, who was just as garrulous.)

 

[Acker79]

I feel like I'm about to add a sort of cliche, 6th Form politics style contribution, but reading the OP it didn't seem to factor in the position that some people have with tax where it is about how it is spent. Using the NHS as an example, there are those that believe too much money is being spent on consultants and office people, rather than being spent on the service.

Perhaps this is factoring somehow - people not eager to pay more tax because of how it's spent (or how they perceive it is spent) and how the extra would be wasted. Or perhaps used as an example of how bad the government is at running things etc.

 

[Wardy's twin]

a while back i accepted there needs to be more taxes if we are to maintain or have more services. i was surprised when a Tory government introduced tax rises they had often opposed. imagine the confusion when Labour rejected this. then further confusion as they complained we had the highest ever taxes (true), made up of rises to NI corporation tax and fiscal drag on higher rate earners.

Labour wont make a clear case for broad tax rises. they are so scared of reaction to that they wont, they will instead rely on minor taxes around the margins, leaving them wide open unfunded spending promises.

Unfortunately what the opposition says is a reaction to the government not a statement of intended policy. If labour get in they will have to raise taxes if they are to improve services that will of course leave them open to being labelled the party of high taxation. Voting for labour means a vote for high taxation but hopefully with it tuned towards those that can afford it. The issue around NI raises was it it hit everyone rather than those who could afford it.

 

[Nobby]

An interesting Chart on Health and Social Care spending.
By the way, this is in no way linked to Tax revenues or GDP

But looking at how much spending is made by respective Governments, for example 2000 onwards and then 2010 onwards, it isn't very hard to work out which party has not kept pace with funding our wonderful NHS and Care system.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Listening to the 'national conversation' the sense seems to be that the NHS is ruined. And yet the nation is not screaming at the government, demanding money be made available (by increasing tax) to fix it. The understaffing is barely mentioned 'at large', and has been absorbed into the general 'woe is the NHS' narrative. Why is nobody demanding that we swap some Albanians with some Rwandan nurses (fair exchange is no robbery etc). I am being facetious of course. My point is that no solutions are being offered. Think of that!

There is one, of course. Put up tax, pump money into the NHS, and make it much easier for the stream of overseas nurses that used to supplement the workforce to settle in the UK.

Oh, but that means higher taxes and more foreigners.

We have not reached tipping point yet, but it may be just over the horizon. Perhaps if Labour grasp the nettle and offer a clear alternative, a brave one (it will require higher taxes, and also some 'redistribution' of wealth, windfall taxes etc.) there may be some hope. Labour are nailed on to form the next government so I can understand that, if they have a clear plan, they are keeping their powder dry. Any detailed policy announcement will be mocked and ridiculed by those willing to rush to the bottom and pedal any lie to keep the Tories in power. So I don't expect Starmer to reveal any detail till after he's in number ten. Risky.

But if there is a plan, a radical left plan, I shall rejoice. Because we cannot carry on like this, with the impossible fudge where tax is kept low and our institutions collapse. That is a hard right agenda, and one that has astonishingly been accepted as the only way of doing things. That (not cheese imports) is a disgrace.

Is it your firm opinion that pouring more money into the NHS will make it better? Because the NHS budget has risen by 32% after adjusting for inflation (from actual spend £94 billion in 2013-14 to budget £152 billion in 2022-23) and the improvement hasn't started to show yet. Evidence suggests we need another solution.

 

[St Leonards Seagull]

I feel like I'm about to add a sort of cliche, 6th Form politics style contribution, but reading the OP it didn't seem to factor in the position that some people have with tax where it is about how it is spent. Using the NHS as an example, there are those that believe too much money is being spent on consultants and office people, rather than being spent on the service.

Perhaps this is factoring somehow - people not eager to pay more tax because of how it's spent (or how they perceive it is spent) and how the extra would be wasted. Or perhaps used as an example of how bad the government is at running things etc.

Yes it’s interesting, obviously money is wasted in the NHS. It’s quite annoying now that it’s being framed by the government as a pay rise or cuts to frontline services. Nurses, paramedics, et al are part of the frontline services. Failing to ensure there are sufficient numbers will lead to reduced frontline services.

 

[The Clamp]

I’d be all for paying higher taxes if;

Wages were higher to start with.
The services were run properly.
And
My taxes didn’t end up paying for private jets, endless lunches, duck houses, new kitchens, fleets of cars with one passenger, shagging mistresses in hotel rooms, illegal parties, hair appointments, personal shoppers, fourth homes, beanos abroad, entertaining Saudi billionaires, opening f***ing coal mines, the ERG, etc etc etc