The UK is a low tax nation. I point this out because the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that if we want to balance the budget and end austerity the UK will have to pay 1% more of GDP in tax. Based on Eurostat data this is how we compare in the EU on this issue:
| Tax paid as a % of GDP | ||
| % | ||
| 1 | Denmark | 46.5% |
| 2 | France | 45.6% |
| 3 | Belgium | 45.2% |
| 4 | Finland | 43.9% |
| 5 | Austria | 43.2% |
| 6 | Sweden | 43.1% |
| 7 | Italy | 43.0% |
| 8 | Hungary | 38.8% |
| 9 | Germany | 38.4% |
| 10 | Netherlands | 37.4% |
| 11 | Luxembourg | 37.2% |
| 12 | Croatia | 37.1% |
| 13 | Slovenia | 36.6% |
| 14 | Greece | 36.6% |
| 15 | Portugal | 34.4% |
| 16 | Czech Republic | 34.0% |
| 17 | Estonia | 33.7% |
| 18 | Spain | 33.7% |
| 19 | Cyprus | 33.2% |
| 20 | United Kingdom | 33.1% |
| 21 | Poland | 32.4% |
| 22 | Malta | 32.1% |
| 23 | Slovak Republic | 32.1% |
| 24 | Latvia | 30.1% |
| 25 | Bulgaria | 29.1% |
| 26 | Lithuania | 28.9% |
| 27 | Romania | 28.0% |
| 28 | Ireland | 23.4% |
We are twentieth. And ignore Ireland: its GDP data is so distorted by being a tax haven even Walt Disney would dismiss it as incredible.
We are also the slowest growing country in the EU.
That is not a coincidence.
Tax rises? Bring them on, I say. We will all be better off.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I have always agreed to everything you have ever said about tax. I get it and I get you.
But in an economic environment where real wages are declining, and debt (and therefore its servicing) is going up (competing with other outgoings like tax) and where we are now expected to pay for things for which the money should have been printed by the State to sustain services it was once committed to (like adult social care for the elderly) I have to say that your statement is a little ill judged.
You have pointed out before that whatever GDP is being generated now by citizens of this country is being done so supported by private debt instead of hard cash or Government debt.
I have raised the issue here on a number of occasions that taxing hard pressed people sullies the notion of progressive attitudes to taxation and actually increases calls for lower taxation for which any number of stupid financially challenged politicians can promise ‘world class services’ with low taxes (yeah right).
The only basis that I will accept more taxes is that this Government (any Government) prints some bloody money first – into my pay packet, into the services that it should be responsible for (the NHS and Social Security) and the infrastructure that needs to be renewed and greened.
There has been a lot of talk about red lines recently. Print the ‘effing money first and then tax me by all means. But not before. That’s my red line. I don’t know about anybody else.
Are we clear?
Tax rises would only be needed because of increased spending
I see no reason why the increases should be on those who benefit from the spending
I stand by what I said
Tax rises should be applied not necessarily because the Govt is spending more but to cool an overheating economy.
If we say the economy is close to overheating in London and the SE, it certainly isn’t in the NE of England and Northern Ireland. Extra money spent there will likely not be at all inflationary. It will instead be bringing into use unused resources to potential benefit of the whole of the UK. So its where money that is spent which matters just as how much is spent.
Latest figures show Ireland, Malta and Luxembourg have the highest growth.
The UK’s growth is the same as Belgium.
Only Denmark has a shrinking GDP.
And Malta, Ireland and Luxembourg all have false GDP data distorted by financial flows
Depends on who is taxed, doesn’t it. Moreover, I don’t see how tax rises in themselves will lead to the UK being better off. Keynes argued that taxes themselves should be reasonably low, though not nonexistent, depending. I am assuming that you are taking for granted equitable distribution of tax demands.
On the other hand, you are starting off with the IFS whose policy prescriptions belong in the bin. They are ok with numbers and they should stop there with what they know.
Tax rises would only be needed because of spending increases
They would make us much better off
But spending increase don’t need tax rises. That’s what you claim.
Oh, they can
If the result otherwise would be inflation they do
Now stop being silly
You are clearly here to troll and you are really not very good at it
Jenny has a valid enough point here. Richard had it right in a previous post where he said:
“We don’t need tax to fund the NHS, but we may increase taxes because we do”
Not that we definitely have to increase taxes just that we may, or might, have to if the economy needs us to do that. ie If higher inflation becomes an issue.
Richard also should refrain from using the word ‘troll’. It’s impolite, petulant and juvenile.
It’s accurate
And often appropriate
And if you don’t like coming here I can solve that for you….
Yes I know it’s your football and you can take it home if you want to. But I do believe that I can give you a decent game – if you are prepared to play!
The trouble is, I doubt anyone else believes you
Re your point about Ireland. How much of the UKs tax paid as a % of GDP is distorted by tax avoidance practices?
The GDP is overstated by more than 25%
In the UK tax avoidance may reduce tax paid by about 1% of GDP.
fyi https://www.facebook.com/talkRADIOUK/videos/180955876122300/
Just listened to this. Albeit I appreciate the good intent to educate but I really think it’s counter-productive to engage with such popularist broadcasters as it only gives a platform to their ignorance, hence that of their audience. Caveat nuntius! The broadcaster always has the last word.
It is confusing when you say “tax rises, bring them on, we will all be better off”. Do you actually mean: “increased spending, bring it on, we will all be better off, and if that gives rise to inflation (which it probably won’t) then we will tax more”?
If you wish
The question is how to get the proper frame in comon sense and skewed media concerning money generation, spending and taxation. On Victoria last week Andrew Lilico was allowed to spew austerity views with no one there to say ‘I’m an economist and almost none of us believe this rot’. It was like letting Saville on with people he abused. Print, spend and tax sounds fine to me. The austerity wonks need to be cut out of the system frame.
The premise outlining how more taxes being paid is beneficial, used to apply. Not anymore, not since the asinine pretense of globalization was hyped. Since then taxpayers have been targeted, to pay for everything corporations and banks do to loose or gamble into debt.
The best example is the total shallowing out of the middle class, initiated in the US.
Taxpayers are on the ‘hook’ to still pay for corporate welfare (standard for decades, just ask ADM),
Then for decades, under NAFTA, chapter 11, they were placed on the hook, to ‘make up’ for any loss of profits thru environmental or industrial changes in laws or regulations.
Then they were ‘set up’ and put on the hook big time,to pay for the 2008 financial crisis perpetrated by their own banks. This payment set up, will apply to every future financial crisis, with bank bailouts/bail-in clauses, annually inserted in every federal budget.
Along with Trump’s legal change, to use any and all depositors monies/assets first, to cover any bank gambling debts (mostly in derivatives-as IMF says there are 832 trillion in o/s contracts).
The template for this move was done by the EU, in Cyprus on their banks to see if ordinary bank customers elsewhere would react—-they didn’t so the scheme worked.
This then, is the situation taxpayers find themselves (although few know about these ‘dirty tricks okayed ‘ by the 1 %).
No other course can be taken, as hedge fund owners were given ‘a blank cheque’ in the form of ‘preferred creditor status’ if any derivative contract fails.(apparently 12 trillion apply to the US alone.
Note too, that hedge fund owners (like corporations) have a wee tax rate of only 15%.
There really is no other scenario, any and all tax cuts will be given to the 1%, while all government programs and services have been cut and will continue to be cut—- to the bone.
People, globally are now being told, employment is ‘precarious’, owning a home, (will be left to a luck few), same with owning a car outright (most will only be able to afford to lease one).
No longer can people ‘count’ on education, medical benefits, etc….as all will soon be privatized and thus out of the reach of most. This then is the bombast scenario Trump and his quiet 1% backers are celebrating for the foreseeable future…..all at everyone else’s expense…..and pain.
[…] goals. I admit I think Talk Radio pretty much gutter press equivalent radio but agreed to do it, checked the data on where the UKÂ stood in the league tables on spending, and when the call came went on air. This is a YouTube of the studio side of the […]
Is there currently an chronic problem of underemployment, zero hour contracts, temporary and part time jobs? Yes?
Then more tax isn’t needed…. yet!
Lets turn the taps on, spend into services, and create a larger demand for labour. There is a huge amount of un-utilised labour desperate for some stable employment. You’re not going to see much inflation while this is the case.
THEN, once we get to full employment and people are happier, then start to look if public services are actually good enough to cope with the countries population. If more people are needed, then increase tax to squeeze some more labour out of the private sector to do the work. It might well be that in time, the tax needs to be raised to that of Denmark or France, to make sure the public sector can cope with the ageing population. But, to increase tax now, while people are suffering, would be unwise. Lets spend first, tax later.
No one believed the global glut of derivatives would affect banks/investment firms (the new financial scammers made legal).
In Canada, we were lied to by our own public news service for years, about our own 120 billion dollar bank bailout in 2009. Few want to know that the same taxpayer bail-in clause is being inserted into each federal budget….
Same in the US, only Trump is quietly passing one of their SJ laws to make using bank customer’s deposits and assets, legal….(ignoring the FDIC –as though its so much sucker cover).
Canadians have also been bribing multinationals (foreign and domestic) to the tune of 695 billion of taxpayer dollars, since the 70’s.
Getting less than cents on the dollar…while multi-billion dollar profit corporations swill in the welfare, and have the gall to lobby for a 15 % tax rate —while whining for annual tax cuts (just like the ones which the middle class in the US, will feel real pain ) —under Trump’s shovel of corporate welfare..(see Fraser Institute’s report re corporate welfare….conservative think tank out of BC.
How else could the 1% create so much poverty and suffering for those, given so little respect–as the 99%. Now floundering and dizzy from the pride of those praising the 1%, while bragging as to who spews the best set of lies..Fear and the realization that the gloves off —as an economist said in Europe, if only 90 million people would simply disappear our problem with climate change could then be controlled. (paraphrasing). Being human just isn’t of value, in fact, its as though people are just taking up space and are wasting resources, which the ultra-rich have finally gained control, over both.
I would like an explanation as to why my comments (mostly sourced) submitted Oct 17th @ 8:39 pm, were CENSORED?
Surely, outlining what others do and say, with referenced sources, is the proper and right way to give careful thought and invite questioning of more than looped news? Please reply? Thank you
I do not recall changing your comment at all
I have, therefore, no idea what you are suggesting
But I stress, whether or what of your comment is published is entirely my choice
I appreciate your candor, but having ‘choice’ these days is a loaded concept. For example, in Quebec there are 31,000 people on a list hoping to be assigned a general physician – for families (for individuals of varying ages/and health conditions). Yet all are on a ‘first come, first served,’ list in a —system of reassigning new physicians…
Not even restaurants want that level of chaos…
So I issued a formal complaint…Result, in our current corrupt system, I have been assigned a new physician in 4 weeks…but my complaint has been closed….so I have been informed. Mr response, was to advise that an appeal would be issued, until a proper triage system, similar to ones for surgery, drugs, and hospitalization— was implemented.
I am from the old school it seems, where fair and mercy must be first and foremost-period.
These values are now considered mere sentiment…as one nurse told me how she resorted to crying over the phone to get her son an appointment with a particular specialist….
So when it comes to clarifying or attempting to give context to the overt confusion and corruption which leave 99% of the world’s people, at the utter mercy of a group of 1%, elite sociopaths. This is why I research as much as I can and state the facts found–period.
Few if any explanation of causes, could be ‘balanced’ as there is no longer a level balance for protection, under our laws, or means of asserting a sliver of power to maintain a future, for ourselves or our children…any where. (most of my sources came from the academics I followed at university, which were then linked to newsletters 200 last count–such as ICH newsletter or Global Research Newsletter, Land Destroyed, etc). I welcome other comments and or analysis. Take care.
I quite liked whatever survived Margs. Systems of hidden subsidies form the history of what we have been calling ‘economics’. We are carbon-footprints now. Morality has changed and we can get oughts from what is if we look long enough. 2.2 billion don’t have access to decent water and toilets. Economics is just another religion in which ‘the poor are always with us’. We should be looking for better.
Can I be clear, I posted what I got