ursaminortaur wrote:1nvest wrote:Without having checked, IIRC October of last year was pretty much the month on month greatest peak in increasing rate of inflation, so year on year had to fall otherwise things would be really bad. Less a case of things are improving, more a case of things aren't continuing to get worse, have instead leveled off.
The UK's pretty much fubar, seen as a clown, and where its next 5 years government will have to cater for a further 50% increase in taxation in having driven the 1% that pay a third of the tax take out of the country. Europe will do well, welcome that 1% number of net contributors as that helps cut the taxation in whatever country(s) the 1% flight to.
And that's all before Lab gets its hands on the public purse and where it will be pretty much unopposed in the House, free to implement even its wildest dreams (extremes).
The overall tax burden as a percentage of GDP was fairly stable under Blair and Brown falling to a low of 31.1% in 2009 from 32.6% in 2000 and was below the average for OECD countries.
https://www.oecd.org/tax/revenue-statistics-united-kingdom.pdfThe tax-to-GDP ratio in the United Kingdom has increased from 32.6% in 2000 to 35.3% in 2022. Over the same period, the OECD average in 2022 was above that in 2000 (34.0% compared with 32.9%). During that period, the highest tax-to-GDP ratio in the United Kingdom was 35.3% in 2022, with the lowest being 31.1% in 2009.
Roy Jenkins, the then Labour Chancellor, in 1968 applied a retrospective taxation of a (top rate) 130% amount. For each £1 earned, a individual was expected to pay Labour (taxman) £1.30. During the 1960's the Beatles released 'Taxman', lyrics along the lines of "19 for you, 1 for me" in reflection of 95% taxation rates. 5p (half a shilling (sixpence) in pre-decimal money) retained out of each £1 earned). David Bowie, Rolling Stones ...etc opted to self exile rather than remain liable to such taxation rates. Any political party with such a extreme history might reasonably be expected to fold that brand name, reform under a new name, Labour haven't, implying that such potential taxation rates are considered as being perfectly acceptable if/when that party so deems. But equally so do the other major party, recent graduates for instance might be seeing 20% basic rate tax, 10% student tax, 12% national insurance 'tax' ... be starting where they have (relatively) sizable debts, that are rising sharply (moderate/high inflation) and where they're being taxed at over a 40% tax rate, retaining less than 60p out of every £1 earned. Many simply opt to remain idle rather than work extra hours that take them into that higher taxation rate. Is a deliberate state policy to promote disincentive, or self-exile.
Me, I'd rather policies where the 1% that pay a third of the tax-take, are doubled in number, or better still trebled in number, as that could mean the 97% remainder not having to pay any tax. LT/KK policies were a urgent push towards that, however others sought to kill that asap and drive the complete opposite (Sunak/Berkeley). Those with sound ideas/preferences have been vilified (LT/KK/SB) for their preferences of sound economics and/or free speech. To leave predominately a Remainer style set as the only choice - who seemingly most prefer self-harm. The realistic choice for voters at the next GE is for which choice of self-harm they might more prefer (or the choice that might lead to the lower degree of pain).