Reply to: Oh Dear: 'Families are being taxed until the pips squeak'

[ALM]

What annoys me most is that not only are most numpties happy to finance the war they argue in favour of it. This is tantamount to pulling your trousers down, bending over and asking Mr Brown to shaft them a bit harder!

[DimPrawn]

If all tax was spent on killing foreigners I'd gladly pay more.

It's when they spend it on pointless socialist things like hospitals and schools it really pisses me off.

[ALM]

Anyway I guess that works out at about 1.5bln a year. Ignoring BobTheCrates valid suggestion that the real figure could conceivably be much higher for reasons of indirect costs this works out at about 75 quid per household.

Given the huge increase in other burdens I don't think this is particularly significant (whether right or not is a different matter of course).

Your calculations are obviously a rough estimation but lets assume that the 'Iraq Tax' equals £75. Even this lowly figure represents a significant part of the increase in tax for each household this year (10%-20% surely?). Furthermore, examining this figure in isolation is pointless. For example, the increase in the price crude-oil over the last few years was largely caused by the war in Iraq. The price of a litre of unleaded has shot from 80-100p over the last 3 years or so. Most of this 20p increase is composed of tax (60% I think). The amount of additional taxation collected as a result, represents more than a couple of £Billion!

[ASB]

That £5billion is actually expenditure 'to date' and not an annual figure, I’m glad to say. Let's not forget that the subject of this thread is the rising tax burden on households in recent times. Although £5Billion represents only a small part of the '£600Billion' public sector budget, it is significant when you bear in mind that the actual increase in tax burden since going to war with Afghanistan and Iraq war probably only amounts to a few billion pounds.

Personally, I find the increasing in tax burden difficult to stomach in the light of needless expenditure in the Iraq, however small it may be.

Having done a bit of scurrying around it appears that a reasonable estimte of the additional costs might be GB's increase of 3bln in the war chest. Quite a lot with a defence budget of < 30bln.

Anyway I guess that works out at about 1.5bln a year. Ignoring BobTheCrates valid suggestion that the real figure could conceivably be much higher for reasons of indirect costs this works out at about 75 quid per household.

Given the huge increase in other burdens I don't think this is particularly significant (whether right or not is a different matter of course).

[BobTheCrate]

It still means that the Iraq conflict is not being paid for in totality out of new money. I agree if the shortfall is also made up after the conflict is over and above the standard premium, that is new money.

Interestingly, the article says that the defence budget has also been steadily increasing. I wonder how much of that is due to Iraq and how much could be construed as what this Gov't loves to call 'investment'; but rarely amounts to investment.

Investment as in updating weaponry & hardware; or investment as in hiring more pen pushers in the MoD to boost the batallions of MoD bureaucrats already out-numbering troops by what ... 10 to 1 ?

[ALM]

Whether the war chest has been exhausted or not - neither you or I know; but it will still receive its premiums.

It was exhausted back in 2003 mate. See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...923745,00.html

I dont consider the 'war chest' relevant tbh. If its full, the expenditure is classified 'spending in iraq from war chest' only to be followed in the following years budget by an equal amount of expenditure is classified as 'filling war chest'. Same difference IMO.

[BobTheCrate]

I did say you need to take the war chest into consideration. Without such consideration your central premise is innaccurate.

Is it filled-up again by magic

If any given conflict outstrips the war chest then of course either additional tax is raised and/or other budgets are hit with the excess costs. I did acknowledge that in my original post.

Whether the war chest has been exhausted or not - neither you or I know; but it will still receive its premiums.

[wendigo100]

And what happens when the war chest is rendered empty? Is it filled-up again by magic or via revenues from taxtion? Can you confirm that the Iraq campaign has been finded completely out of this 'chest'? Mr Brown's recent budgets seem to suggest otherwise.

There is an annual budget to pay for the armed forces on standby, which comes out of taxation.

The extras for running a war, such as replacing damaged equipment, using more fuel and toilet paper, and heavier use of bullets, shouldn't be very large in Iraq given that there is relatively little combat.

[ALM]

ALM,

I think you need to take into consideration 'the war chest' that is paid into out of tax revenues, irrespective of whether there is a war or not.

The war chest is like the state's own insurance policy that it pays premiums into out of an ongoing and standard budgetry expenditure.

And what happens when the war chest is rendered empty? Is it filled-up again by magic or via revenues from taxation? Can you confirm that the Iraq campaign has been funded completely out of this 'chest'? Mr Brown's recent budgets seem to suggest otherwise.

[BobTheCrate]

ALM,

I think you need to take into consideration 'the war chest' that is paid into out of tax revenues, irrespective of whether there is a war or not.

The war chest is like the state's own insurance policy that it pays premiums into out of an ongoing and standard budgetry expenditure.

[ALM]

Logic says that's right. But if we have spent 5bln in Iraq (out of a total public sector budget of approx 600 bln) then does that actually contribut 5 bln to rising taxes?

No is the answer. What I would like to know is how much has it contributed, and thats very difficult to guess. What would the cost of those troops have been were they not in Iraq, need to know that before the incremental cost can be figured out. I suspect this cost to be comparatively low.

That £5billion is actually expenditure 'to date' and not an annual figure, I’m glad to say. Let's not forget that the subject of this thread is the rising tax burden on households in recent times. Although £5Billion represents only a small part of the '£600Billion' public sector budget, it is significant when you bear in mind that the actual increase in tax burden since going to war with Afghanistan and Iraq war probably only amounts to a few billion pounds.

Personally, I find the increasing in tax burden difficult to stomach in the light of needless expenditure in the Iraq, however small it may be.

[BobTheCrate]

Or just give it to EDS

No. Again, it would be more cost efficient to rip the money up and throw it to the wind.

Come on DP get with it

[DimPrawn]

Or just give it to EDS.

[BobTheCrate]

I doubt the Iraq war is contributing to the indisputable rise in taxes.

The reason is the 'war chest'.

Every British Government has serviced a war chest out of tax revenues, whether there is a war or not.

A bit like insurance premiums.

Of course if the costs of any conflict outstrip the war chest, that is when additional tax revenue has to be found.

Well that's the way it's suppose to be and has been for a long time. But who really knows with this lieing and deceitful Government.

The only reason for spiralling tax is Labour's inherant preoccupation with 'throwing' money at public services in such a way that would make it more cost effective to rip the money up and throw it to the wind.

[wendigo100]

Does that actually contribute 5 bln to rising taxes?

I bet that £5 billion doesn't include intangibles, like the costs of our heightened security, the effect of dragging TAs away from their jobs, all those BBC reporters in bars up and down the Tigris and Euphrates.