Err, Polly?

Something doesn’t quite add up here:

Political consensus says current spending at 42.5% of GDP is all the voters will stand.

OK, 42.5% of GDP.

Brown has given voters permission to go on demanding the impossible – European welfare on US tax levels.

Err, no. In the US it’s 36.4%.

You can have a look around and see that some other European countries (Spain for example) have government shares of the economy rather like the US. We in fact do not have US style levels of taxation at all: we’re much closer to the European averages. It’s also true that we don’t have a European style welfare state: because of the way we organise things, centrally, bureaucratically, we actually get less bang for our buck than many others.

No European state follows the NHS model, for example. Many have voucher schemes for education. It’s one thing to call for the State to do more (I’ll disagree but then so what?) but would it at least be possible to call for the State to look around the world and choose the most efficient methods of doing those things?

At least this cut benefits only the lowest and middle earners, giving nothing to the top 10%.

Err, you missed the bit where he doubled that rate of income tax for low earners did you?

11 responses

  1. dearieme Avatar
    dearieme

    She presumably favours an inefficient welfare state because it implies an over-employment of clients for Labour and readers for the Grdniuaa. Why assume she’s stupid when you can just assume she’s rational?

  2. The US at 36% ins’t that good. If you take off the about 9% we spend on our health service we areboth spending about the same. If you know that the US spends about 15% on their, mainly private insurance covered, health service. On non-health spending we seem to be doing better, or at least slightly less badly, than them.

  3. Neil Craig is wrong. The US government spends between 6 and 7% of GNP on Medicare and Medicaid. So if you’re going to subtract 9% from the UK figure you also need to subtract 6-7% from the US figure.

  4. dsquared Avatar
    dsquared

    [Err, you missed the bit where he doubled that rate of income tax for low earners did you?]
    you presumably missed the increase in the Working Tax Credit. Have a look at the papers on the IFS website – they’ve worked it all out and PT is basically right.

  5. dearieme Avatar
    dearieme

    Ah, but “Working Tax Credit” refers to a tax credit that isn’t working, doesn’t it?

  6. Mark Wadsworth Avatar
    Mark Wadsworth

    Dearieme, that’s brilliant, reminds me of that famous election poster “Tax credits aren’t working”, in fact they are not just NOT working, they are making things WORSE.

  7. The IFS does nothing of the sort.
    Main losers
    Single adults on <£18.5K, no children, not on tax credits Families with two earners whose tax credit rise not sufficient to compensate for income tax losses Taxpaying women aged 60-64

  8. Johnathan Avatar
    Johnathan

    Polly is a waste of time. She obviously fancies Gordo. It is rather sweet really.

  9. Umbongo Avatar
    Umbongo

    “She obviously fancies Gordo”
    I assume she’ll be picking her nose on telly as well – not an inviting prospect!

  10. dsquared Avatar
    dsquared

    GeoffH: a single adult not recieving the WTC would not be an “earner”.

  11. If you work less than 30 hours a week you can’t claim the Working Tax Credit. So a care worker on the minimum wage who does two 10 hour nights and a couple of 6 til 10 evenings will be paying more than £10 income tax plus NI on earnings of £150 or so.
    40% of those eligible for the WTC don’t claim it ( a million people, I guess they have their pride ) if they did then tax would have to go up.
    Shame on Labour

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading