This graph says it all. I'm sure my friends at the Adam Smith Institute will tell me if I have got this wrong, but at the end of the Major government in 1997, Tax Freedom Day fell on 25 May. This year it's on June 7th, a full 13 days later. Translated this means that you now have to work a fortnight longer before you earn a penny for yourself. It also means you're paying 9% more tax than you were in 1997. Going back even further, in 1963 Tax Freedom Day fell on 24 April. halcyon days. Obviously the day fluctuates according to economic fortunes, but surely if our economy was doing so well it should be getting progressively earlier in the year, not later. As someone has said on KiwiBlog ..."Dogs bark, cats meow, bears shit in the woods and Labour raise taxes".
Actually I added the 'bears' bit on for dramatic effect! There has been some debate recently about what the Whitsun Bank Holiday should be called. Personally I'd change it from the last Monday in May to whatever day Tax Freedom Day falls on. It might bring home to people how much they are actually paying in tax, and persuade them of the virtues of keeping more of their own money. Hmmm. Keeping more of your own money... That's spelt Tee Ay eX C U Tee. Hat-tip to KiwiBlog for the graphic.
15 comments:
But wouldn't it be problematic for employers not to know in advance when holidays were going to fall?
I also dislike the concept for the following reason. We certainly pay too much tax. But implying that you are only free once taxes have been paid, and by extension that all is well only when taxes have been paid gives the impression that tax is inherently wrong.
Tax is certainly not wrong. Yes it should basically only go on defence, the police and to fund parts of health and education. But people should have no qualms about paying for those things.
It would also be politically unwise, as if under a Tory Government Tax Freedom Day fell later in the year than before we'd take a hit.
This is a bit rambly as I am on cough mixture.
Bad news for you Iain, The BBC report that George Osborne has said that promises of tax cuts were "very unlikely to be on offer".
BTW the comparisons with the US and Australia are misleading because they leave out health costs.
Iain you are a bit of a scopey whenit comes to telling the truth
So if we wouldn't be any better off under the tories, why would we put up with the inevitable cuts in public services that they would entail?
Tommy G - National taxes should be applied to our armed forces national defence, keeping unwanted aliens out of our country and expelling found to be here. They also go to funding the police.
Schools should be paid for by local taxes.
Nothing else should be paid for by the taxpayer.
- Anonymousette
Ain't gonna be no tax freedom, boss, while states still exist to steal the land from under our feet and then levy taxes, and extort monies with menaces, beause we happen to still be living on it.
Iain,
If you're planning a geurilla campaign to get the leadership to lower taxes then I think you'll lose.
Also when was tax day under Thatch?
Does this figure take into account the cost of health services or is that one of the public services you would like to see transferred into the private sector?
Disingenuous graphs, deliberately misleading figures and a national holiday geared towards promoting an individual's pet policy.
Presenting Commissar Iain Dale
JM, disingenuouis graphs, misleading figures... Hmmm,what does that remind me of? Oh yes, a LibDem focus leaflet! I remember the days when Liberals believed in low taxes and small government.
Anonymousette - of all the things that I would argue should be funded from local taxes, Schools are definitely not one of them. Nor social services, social housing or even perhaps policing. Central government sets most of the policy here, and boasts about the investment, etc, so it should be fully funded through central govt.
Local govt financing really should be getting back to the basics of what is in the control of the authority - bins, streets, etc.
o/t for this thread, but damned if I'm delving into the previous thread of bile again (!) - bad for Arsenal if they have broken the rules in this way. But a thought is exactly why the rules should be there in the first place? Devils advocate I know, but why not actually let a club also own part or all of a lower-division club - say as long as it is 2 divisions lower (to avoid conflict of interest if it comes to the promotion/relegation playoffs)? In this way, some of the vast Premiership money might find its way down to the lower divisions and provide real investment in developing upcoming players. Transfers would have to be utterly transparent, however.
It seems the Thatcher govt would have had the warmest days off.
Not a good Tory propaganda weapon
So true. Because none of use the NHS, have our kids educated by the state, use public transport or have our bins collected. We all pay taxes but get nothing back.
Iain,
I from your response, I suspect you might think I'm a Lib Dem...I'm not.
I don't want to sound like a broken record but you say "the graph says it all" when you know full well that the graph doesn't say it all. You deliberately picked countries that have an earlier 'tax freedom day' to imply that the UK is somehow worse off than the rest of the world.
I'm not sure where you get the "you're paying 9% more tax than you were in 1997" but I STRONGLY suspect that you are not talking in real terms...rather in absolute terms.
C'mon Iain. You're an extremely smart guy - you know all this is true. Why are you subjecting us to such crass spin...something you claim to despise.
Iain
The Adam Smith institute says that its tax freedom day tomorrow.
By the way I have a couple of graphics on the right links blog to celebrate.
Post a Comment