Now we're going back to the 1970s

[WTFH]

... thanks to his immediate predecessors' incompetence

I think you're mistaken. Truss was not his immediate predecessor.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

So you think HMG buys stuff from some international Tesco?

Well no, and of course nothing I've written suggested that.

Mostly it went on reducing taxation in several areas,

Ah, so increases in tax paid for.....er .......reductions in tax, and was spending tax in "useful directions" unlike today.
Well that all makes perfect sense.

[DoctorStrangelove]

Well that all makes perfect sense.

I see you've grasped the logic of Thatcherism. .

[sadkingbilly]

I see you've grasped the logic of Thatcherism. .

yeh, if you're not a rabid Tory, you're economically illiterate.
feck me, and i've been successfully freelance for <>50 years too.
who knew???

[malvolio]

I think you're mistaken. Truss was not his immediate predecessor.

Correct. But his immediate predecessors (hint: plural, surnames start with S and R) outperformed Truss several times over. Plus her ideas were sound, but she was too inept to enact them properly. S and R didn't even have ideas, only dogma.

[malvolio]

Well no, and of course nothing I've written suggested that.


Ah, so increases in tax paid for.....er .......reductions in tax, and was spending tax in "useful directions" unlike today.
Well that all makes perfect sense.

It makes more sense than your comment. Where did I say "increases in tax"? Or can you not differentiate between tax rates and tax revenue? Or between borrowing and income?

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Where did I say "increases in tax"?

Here

Yes, taxes went up. They were spent in useful directions though, unlike today.

can you not differentiate between tax rates and tax revenue?

I absolutely can, which is why I was careful to mention that taxes rose not, just just in absolute (revenue) terms, but as a proportion of GDP.

The tax burden - as a proportion of GDP increased over the period of Thatcher's leadership.

[malvolio]

Here





I absolutely can, which is why I was careful to mention that taxes rose not, just just in absolute (revenue) terms, but as a proportion of GDP.

The tax burden - as a proportion of GDP increased over the period of Thatcher's leadership.

Let me quote the OBR analysis:

1979–1990s: The aggregate tax burden was volatile but generally fell. After an early 1980s peak near 39%, successive cuts to the basic and top rates of income tax helped the tax burden hit a modern low of roughly 27% in 1993. [1, 2, 3]

For comparison it's around 36-40% now.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

I was talking about Thatcher - she quit in 1990.

Here's one of a number of sources -

Creating a Dynamic Society: The Tax Reforms of the Thatcher Government

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 March 2017

Margaret Thatcher initially increased the overall tax burden as a proportion of GDP, raising it from 32.7% in 1978 to a peak of 38.5% in 1982 ...... By the time she left office in 1990, the proportion had fallen back to 35.5%, which was still higher than when her government took power

(my emphasis)

[Peoplesoft bloke]

or if you prefer - tax Policy associates -

Mrs Thatcher is still heralded as a tax-cutter by many. But what actually happened to UK tax revenues, as a proportion of GDP, over her premiership?

They went up a lot, then down a fair bit, but not as much as they went up.

https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2022/06/08/uk-tax-vs-gdp/