FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Anyone else dreading the budget
Anyone else dreading the budget
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I have deared UK plc bankruptcy and Were are some way from HW s. The devaluation of the £. And his pound in your pocket wont change bUT it won't be long Im betting she hit the rich and avoids the super rich I am a pensioner own a house and drive a car so like most if us ill be classified as a soft touch Economy growth oh please " So far this week the stock market is up and sterling is up. What will people do if she actually gets it right lol | |||
| |||
"If she raises taxes for the 'money makers', they will move it or themselves offshore. Next budget more taxes will be needed to make up the shortfall. Repeat until bankrupt." Exactly this 
And it won’t be the rich who suffer it’ll be those who work their arse off and aren’t entitled to any benefits as per usual | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I have deared UK plc bankruptcy and Were are some way from HW s. The devaluation of the £. And his pound in your pocket wont change bUT it won't be long Im betting she hit the rich and avoids the super rich I am a pensioner own a house and drive a car so like most if us ill be classified as a soft touch Economy growth oh please So far this week the stock market is up and sterling is up. What will people do if she actually gets it right lol" I'll go searching for flying pigs. | |||
"This is going to be pretty horrid, but will hopefully be the inevitable start of the end for left wing politics getting near power for another 14 years. " The current Labour government is anything but left wing! | |||
"If she raises taxes for the 'money makers', they will move it or themselves offshore. Next budget more taxes will be needed to make up the shortfall. Repeat until bankrupt." Let them go. Just make sure they are banned from doing further business in the UK. Other, more patriotic & less greedy entrepreneurs will likely fill their shoes. | |||
"If she raises taxes for the 'money makers', they will move it or themselves offshore. Next budget more taxes will be needed to make up the shortfall. Repeat until bankrupt. Let them go. Just make sure they are banned from doing further business in the UK. Other, more patriotic & less greedy entrepreneurs will likely fill their shoes." Sarcasm at its finest 😂😂 | |||
"If she raises taxes for the 'money makers', they will move it or themselves offshore. Next budget more taxes will be needed to make up the shortfall. Repeat until bankrupt. Let them go. Just make sure they are banned from doing further business in the UK. Other, more patriotic & less greedy entrepreneurs will likely fill their shoes. Sarcasm at its finest 😂😂" Well plenty of western companies have left Russia, punitive sanctions etc & it’s still standing. I’d imagine without the exorbitant costs of Putin’s ongoing war against Ukraine, it’d be more than standing. People will fill the gaps left. The effects of the rich going are overstated. The 1970s had punitive UK tax rates on the better off. Yet the UK still had decent economic growth, better growth than we have now, despite the well documented industrial unrest of the time, oil price shock of the mid ‘70s aside. | |||
"If she raises taxes for the 'money makers', they will move it or themselves offshore. Next budget more taxes will be needed to make up the shortfall. Repeat until bankrupt. Let them go. Just make sure they are banned from doing further business in the UK. Other, more patriotic & less greedy entrepreneurs will likely fill their shoes. Sarcasm at its finest 😂😂 Well plenty of western companies have left Russia, punitive sanctions etc & it’s still standing. I’d imagine without the exorbitant costs of Putin’s ongoing war against Ukraine, it’d be more than standing. People will fill the gaps left. The effects of the rich going are overstated. The 1970s had punitive UK tax rates on the better off. Yet the UK still had decent economic growth, better growth than we have now, despite the well documented industrial unrest of the time, oil price shock of the mid ‘70s aside. " Did you mean to use the 1970's as an example of the countries economic growth, when we sere dubbed the sick man of Europe and needed an IMF bailout? As an aside, the top 1% provide 29% of all income tax and the top 10% pay 60%. Losing people from the top 1% impacts the treasury. | |||
"If she raises taxes for the 'money makers', they will move it or themselves offshore. Next budget more taxes will be needed to make up the shortfall. Repeat until bankrupt. Let them go. Just make sure they are banned from doing further business in the UK. Other, more patriotic & less greedy entrepreneurs will likely fill their shoes. Sarcasm at its finest 😂😂 Well plenty of western companies have left Russia, punitive sanctions etc & it’s still standing. I’d imagine without the exorbitant costs of Putin’s ongoing war against Ukraine, it’d be more than standing. People will fill the gaps left. The effects of the rich going are overstated. The 1970s had punitive UK tax rates on the better off. Yet the UK still had decent economic growth, better growth than we have now, despite the well documented industrial unrest of the time, oil price shock of the mid ‘70s aside. Did you mean to use the 1970's as an example of the countries economic growth, when we sere dubbed the sick man of Europe and needed an IMF bailout? As an aside, the top 1% provide 29% of all income tax and the top 10% pay 60%. Losing people from the top 1% impacts the treasury." There was industrial unrest as I stated. A skyrocketing oil price & associated inflation & wage demands due to things out of the governments control. None of which alters the fact there were higher Income Tax rates on the rich than there are now & yet we had better economic growth over that decade (oil shock dip aside) than we do now. | |||
"If she raises taxes for the 'money makers', they will move it or themselves offshore. Next budget more taxes will be needed to make up the shortfall. Repeat until bankrupt. Let them go. Just make sure they are banned from doing further business in the UK. Other, more patriotic & less greedy entrepreneurs will likely fill their shoes. Sarcasm at its finest 😂😂 Well plenty of western companies have left Russia, punitive sanctions etc & it’s still standing. I’d imagine without the exorbitant costs of Putin’s ongoing war against Ukraine, it’d be more than standing. People will fill the gaps left. The effects of the rich going are overstated. The 1970s had punitive UK tax rates on the better off. Yet the UK still had decent economic growth, better growth than we have now, despite the well documented industrial unrest of the time, oil price shock of the mid ‘70s aside. Did you mean to use the 1970's as an example of the countries economic growth, when we sere dubbed the sick man of Europe and needed an IMF bailout? As an aside, the top 1% provide 29% of all income tax and the top 10% pay 60%. Losing people from the top 1% impacts the treasury. There was industrial unrest as I stated. A skyrocketing oil price & associated inflation & wage demands due to things out of the governments control. None of which alters the fact there were higher Income Tax rates on the rich than there are now & yet we had better economic growth over that decade (oil shock dip aside) than we do now." You must be misunderstanding what the 1970's growth numbers actually show. The economy was so weak and volatile that any short rise, even a tiny positive blip, skewed the figures positively. | |||
"If she raises taxes for the 'money makers', they will move it or themselves offshore. Next budget more taxes will be needed to make up the shortfall. Repeat until bankrupt. Let them go. Just make sure they are banned from doing further business in the UK. Other, more patriotic & less greedy entrepreneurs will likely fill their shoes. Sarcasm at its finest 😂😂 Well plenty of western companies have left Russia, punitive sanctions etc & it’s still standing. I’d imagine without the exorbitant costs of Putin’s ongoing war against Ukraine, it’d be more than standing. People will fill the gaps left. The effects of the rich going are overstated. The 1970s had punitive UK tax rates on the better off. Yet the UK still had decent economic growth, better growth than we have now, despite the well documented industrial unrest of the time, oil price shock of the mid ‘70s aside. Did you mean to use the 1970's as an example of the countries economic growth, when we sere dubbed the sick man of Europe and needed an IMF bailout? As an aside, the top 1% provide 29% of all income tax and the top 10% pay 60%. Losing people from the top 1% impacts the treasury. There was industrial unrest as I stated. A skyrocketing oil price & associated inflation & wage demands due to things out of the governments control. None of which alters the fact there were higher Income Tax rates on the rich than there are now & yet we had better economic growth over that decade (oil shock dip aside) than we do now. You must be misunderstanding what the 1970's growth numbers actually show. The economy was so weak and volatile that any short rise, even a tiny positive blip, skewed the figures positively. " I get what you are saying, but no. From the HoL library: “Despite the macroeconomic turbulence of the 1970s, annual GDP growth still averaged 2.7% and living standards rose significantly. Growth in real household disposable income (RHDI) per head was either low or negative for much of the decade, but grew rapidly in 1972–73 and 1978–79, leaving RHDI per head almost 30% higher in 1979 than it was in 1970.[18] This was a greater increase than was experienced in either the decade before (the 1960s) or the decade that followed (the 1980s).” | |||
"If she raises taxes for the 'money makers', they will move it or themselves offshore. Next budget more taxes will be needed to make up the shortfall. Repeat until bankrupt. Let them go. Just make sure they are banned from doing further business in the UK. Other, more patriotic & less greedy entrepreneurs will likely fill their shoes. Sarcasm at its finest 😂😂 Well plenty of western companies have left Russia, punitive sanctions etc & it’s still standing. I’d imagine without the exorbitant costs of Putin’s ongoing war against Ukraine, it’d be more than standing. People will fill the gaps left. The effects of the rich going are overstated. The 1970s had punitive UK tax rates on the better off. Yet the UK still had decent economic growth, better growth than we have now, despite the well documented industrial unrest of the time, oil price shock of the mid ‘70s aside. Did you mean to use the 1970's as an example of the countries economic growth, when we sere dubbed the sick man of Europe and needed an IMF bailout? As an aside, the top 1% provide 29% of all income tax and the top 10% pay 60%. Losing people from the top 1% impacts the treasury. There was industrial unrest as I stated. A skyrocketing oil price & associated inflation & wage demands due to things out of the governments control. None of which alters the fact there were higher Income Tax rates on the rich than there are now & yet we had better economic growth over that decade (oil shock dip aside) than we do now. You must be misunderstanding what the 1970's growth numbers actually show. The economy was so weak and volatile that any short rise, even a tiny positive blip, skewed the figures positively. I get what you are saying, but no. From the HoL library: “Despite the macroeconomic turbulence of the 1970s, annual GDP growth still averaged 2.7% and living standards rose significantly. Growth in real household disposable income (RHDI) per head was either low or negative for much of the decade, but grew rapidly in 1972–73 and 1978–79, leaving RHDI per head almost 30% higher in 1979 than it was in 1970.[18] This was a greater increase than was experienced in either the decade before (the 1960s) or the decade that followed (the 1980s).”" The two periods you mention, 72–73 and 78–79, were spikes inside a decade of awful performance. 72–73 was the dash for growth that triggered the worst inflation the UK has ever had, which forced huge pay rises that distorted the figures you are mentioning. The IMF bailout in 76, was an embarrassment. 78–79 was a swing into positive productivity, but it was a blip, followed by the Winter of Discontent. The 70s was a car crash of a decade. | |||
"If she raises taxes for the 'money makers', they will move it or themselves offshore. Next budget more taxes will be needed to make up the shortfall. Repeat until bankrupt. Let them go. Just make sure they are banned from doing further business in the UK. Other, more patriotic & less greedy entrepreneurs will likely fill their shoes. Sarcasm at its finest 😂😂 Well plenty of western companies have left Russia, punitive sanctions etc & it’s still standing. I’d imagine without the exorbitant costs of Putin’s ongoing war against Ukraine, it’d be more than standing. People will fill the gaps left. The effects of the rich going are overstated. The 1970s had punitive UK tax rates on the better off. Yet the UK still had decent economic growth, better growth than we have now, despite the well documented industrial unrest of the time, oil price shock of the mid ‘70s aside. Did you mean to use the 1970's as an example of the countries economic growth, when we sere dubbed the sick man of Europe and needed an IMF bailout? As an aside, the top 1% provide 29% of all income tax and the top 10% pay 60%. Losing people from the top 1% impacts the treasury. There was industrial unrest as I stated. A skyrocketing oil price & associated inflation & wage demands due to things out of the governments control. None of which alters the fact there were higher Income Tax rates on the rich than there are now & yet we had better economic growth over that decade (oil shock dip aside) than we do now. You must be misunderstanding what the 1970's growth numbers actually show. The economy was so weak and volatile that any short rise, even a tiny positive blip, skewed the figures positively. I get what you are saying, but no. From the HoL library: “Despite the macroeconomic turbulence of the 1970s, annual GDP growth still averaged 2.7% and living standards rose significantly. Growth in real household disposable income (RHDI) per head was either low or negative for much of the decade, but grew rapidly in 1972–73 and 1978–79, leaving RHDI per head almost 30% higher in 1979 than it was in 1970.[18] This was a greater increase than was experienced in either the decade before (the 1960s) or the decade that followed (the 1980s).” The two periods you mention, 72–73 and 78–79, were spikes inside a decade of awful performance. 72–73 was the dash for growth that triggered the worst inflation the UK has ever had, which forced huge pay rises that distorted the figures you are mentioning. The IMF bailout in 76, was an embarrassment. 78–79 was a swing into positive productivity, but it was a blip, followed by the Winter of Discontent. The 70s was a car crash of a decade." …that STILL averaged 2.7% growth, whilst taxing the better off more than we do now. | |||
"If she raises taxes for the 'money makers', they will move it or themselves offshore. Next budget more taxes will be needed to make up the shortfall. Repeat until bankrupt. Let them go. Just make sure they are banned from doing further business in the UK. Other, more patriotic & less greedy entrepreneurs will likely fill their shoes. Sarcasm at its finest 😂😂 Well plenty of western companies have left Russia, punitive sanctions etc & it’s still standing. I’d imagine without the exorbitant costs of Putin’s ongoing war against Ukraine, it’d be more than standing. People will fill the gaps left. The effects of the rich going are overstated. The 1970s had punitive UK tax rates on the better off. Yet the UK still had decent economic growth, better growth than we have now, despite the well documented industrial unrest of the time, oil price shock of the mid ‘70s aside. Did you mean to use the 1970's as an example of the countries economic growth, when we sere dubbed the sick man of Europe and needed an IMF bailout? As an aside, the top 1% provide 29% of all income tax and the top 10% pay 60%. Losing people from the top 1% impacts the treasury. There was industrial unrest as I stated. A skyrocketing oil price & associated inflation & wage demands due to things out of the governments control. None of which alters the fact there were higher Income Tax rates on the rich than there are now & yet we had better economic growth over that decade (oil shock dip aside) than we do now. You must be misunderstanding what the 1970's growth numbers actually show. The economy was so weak and volatile that any short rise, even a tiny positive blip, skewed the figures positively. I get what you are saying, but no. From the HoL library: “Despite the macroeconomic turbulence of the 1970s, annual GDP growth still averaged 2.7% and living standards rose significantly. Growth in real household disposable income (RHDI) per head was either low or negative for much of the decade, but grew rapidly in 1972–73 and 1978–79, leaving RHDI per head almost 30% higher in 1979 than it was in 1970.[18] This was a greater increase than was experienced in either the decade before (the 1960s) or the decade that followed (the 1980s).” The two periods you mention, 72–73 and 78–79, were spikes inside a decade of awful performance. 72–73 was the dash for growth that triggered the worst inflation the UK has ever had, which forced huge pay rises that distorted the figures you are mentioning. The IMF bailout in 76, was an embarrassment. 78–79 was a swing into positive productivity, but it was a blip, followed by the Winter of Discontent. The 70s was a car crash of a decade. …that STILL averaged 2.7% growth, whilst taxing the better off more than we do now. " It isn’t 2.7% growth on top of a healthy, expanding economy.. Think of it like this: 2.7% growth on a base (0.1) is virtually nothing. 2.7% growth on a base (4) is forty times larger. it is the same percentage, completely different outcome.. | |||
"If she raises taxes for the 'money makers', they will move it or themselves offshore. Next budget more taxes will be needed to make up the shortfall. Repeat until bankrupt. Let them go. Just make sure they are banned from doing further business in the UK. Other, more patriotic & less greedy entrepreneurs will likely fill their shoes. Sarcasm at its finest 😂😂 Well plenty of western companies have left Russia, punitive sanctions etc & it’s still standing. I’d imagine without the exorbitant costs of Putin’s ongoing war against Ukraine, it’d be more than standing. People will fill the gaps left. The effects of the rich going are overstated. The 1970s had punitive UK tax rates on the better off. Yet the UK still had decent economic growth, better growth than we have now, despite the well documented industrial unrest of the time, oil price shock of the mid ‘70s aside. Did you mean to use the 1970's as an example of the countries economic growth, when we sere dubbed the sick man of Europe and needed an IMF bailout? As an aside, the top 1% provide 29% of all income tax and the top 10% pay 60%. Losing people from the top 1% impacts the treasury. There was industrial unrest as I stated. A skyrocketing oil price & associated inflation & wage demands due to things out of the governments control. None of which alters the fact there were higher Income Tax rates on the rich than there are now & yet we had better economic growth over that decade (oil shock dip aside) than we do now. You must be misunderstanding what the 1970's growth numbers actually show. The economy was so weak and volatile that any short rise, even a tiny positive blip, skewed the figures positively. I get what you are saying, but no. From the HoL library: “Despite the macroeconomic turbulence of the 1970s, annual GDP growth still averaged 2.7% and living standards rose significantly. Growth in real household disposable income (RHDI) per head was either low or negative for much of the decade, but grew rapidly in 1972–73 and 1978–79, leaving RHDI per head almost 30% higher in 1979 than it was in 1970.[18] This was a greater increase than was experienced in either the decade before (the 1960s) or the decade that followed (the 1980s).” The two periods you mention, 72–73 and 78–79, were spikes inside a decade of awful performance. 72–73 was the dash for growth that triggered the worst inflation the UK has ever had, which forced huge pay rises that distorted the figures you are mentioning. The IMF bailout in 76, was an embarrassment. 78–79 was a swing into positive productivity, but it was a blip, followed by the Winter of Discontent. The 70s was a car crash of a decade. …that STILL averaged 2.7% growth, whilst taxing the better off more than we do now. It isn’t 2.7% growth on top of a healthy, expanding economy.. Think of it like this: 2.7% growth on a base (0.1) is virtually nothing. 2.7% growth on a base (4) is forty times larger. it is the same percentage, completely different outcome.. " Explain the rise in disposable incomes then during the decade if there was no growth? | |||
| |||
"If she raises taxes for the 'money makers', they will move it or themselves offshore. Next budget more taxes will be needed to make up the shortfall. Repeat until bankrupt. Let them go. Just make sure they are banned from doing further business in the UK. Other, more patriotic & less greedy entrepreneurs will likely fill their shoes. Sarcasm at its finest 😂😂 Well plenty of western companies have left Russia, punitive sanctions etc & it’s still standing. I’d imagine without the exorbitant costs of Putin’s ongoing war against Ukraine, it’d be more than standing. People will fill the gaps left. The effects of the rich going are overstated. The 1970s had punitive UK tax rates on the better off. Yet the UK still had decent economic growth, better growth than we have now, despite the well documented industrial unrest of the time, oil price shock of the mid ‘70s aside. Did you mean to use the 1970's as an example of the countries economic growth, when we sere dubbed the sick man of Europe and needed an IMF bailout? As an aside, the top 1% provide 29% of all income tax and the top 10% pay 60%. Losing people from the top 1% impacts the treasury. There was industrial unrest as I stated. A skyrocketing oil price & associated inflation & wage demands due to things out of the governments control. None of which alters the fact there were higher Income Tax rates on the rich than there are now & yet we had better economic growth over that decade (oil shock dip aside) than we do now. You must be misunderstanding what the 1970's growth numbers actually show. The economy was so weak and volatile that any short rise, even a tiny positive blip, skewed the figures positively. I get what you are saying, but no. From the HoL library: “Despite the macroeconomic turbulence of the 1970s, annual GDP growth still averaged 2.7% and living standards rose significantly. Growth in real household disposable income (RHDI) per head was either low or negative for much of the decade, but grew rapidly in 1972–73 and 1978–79, leaving RHDI per head almost 30% higher in 1979 than it was in 1970.[18] This was a greater increase than was experienced in either the decade before (the 1960s) or the decade that followed (the 1980s).” The two periods you mention, 72–73 and 78–79, were spikes inside a decade of awful performance. 72–73 was the dash for growth that triggered the worst inflation the UK has ever had, which forced huge pay rises that distorted the figures you are mentioning. The IMF bailout in 76, was an embarrassment. 78–79 was a swing into positive productivity, but it was a blip, followed by the Winter of Discontent. The 70s was a car crash of a decade. …that STILL averaged 2.7% growth, whilst taxing the better off more than we do now. It isn’t 2.7% growth on top of a healthy, expanding economy.. Think of it like this: 2.7% growth on a base (0.1) is virtually nothing. 2.7% growth on a base (4) is forty times larger. it is the same percentage, completely different outcome.. Explain the rise in disposable incomes then during the decade if there was no growth? " Inflation was at its highest level ever in the UK. Pay rises increased to try and keep up with inflation, on paper it would look like pay was rising with positive outcomes. However, if you earn £100 and a loaf cost £1, but inflation increases caused the cost of that bread to rise to £5, and you are given a pay rise to £500, you are no better off. On paper you had a 400% pay rise, reality you were no better off. | |||
"If she raises taxes for the 'money makers', they will move it or themselves offshore. Next budget more taxes will be needed to make up the shortfall. Repeat until bankrupt. Let them go. Just make sure they are banned from doing further business in the UK. Other, more patriotic & less greedy entrepreneurs will likely fill their shoes. Sarcasm at its finest 😂😂 Well plenty of western companies have left Russia, punitive sanctions etc & it’s still standing. I’d imagine without the exorbitant costs of Putin’s ongoing war against Ukraine, it’d be more than standing. People will fill the gaps left. The effects of the rich going are overstated. The 1970s had punitive UK tax rates on the better off. Yet the UK still had decent economic growth, better growth than we have now, despite the well documented industrial unrest of the time, oil price shock of the mid ‘70s aside. Did you mean to use the 1970's as an example of the countries economic growth, when we sere dubbed the sick man of Europe and needed an IMF bailout? As an aside, the top 1% provide 29% of all income tax and the top 10% pay 60%. Losing people from the top 1% impacts the treasury. There was industrial unrest as I stated. A skyrocketing oil price & associated inflation & wage demands due to things out of the governments control. None of which alters the fact there were higher Income Tax rates on the rich than there are now & yet we had better economic growth over that decade (oil shock dip aside) than we do now. You must be misunderstanding what the 1970's growth numbers actually show. The economy was so weak and volatile that any short rise, even a tiny positive blip, skewed the figures positively. I get what you are saying, but no. From the HoL library: “Despite the macroeconomic turbulence of the 1970s, annual GDP growth still averaged 2.7% and living standards rose significantly. Growth in real household disposable income (RHDI) per head was either low or negative for much of the decade, but grew rapidly in 1972–73 and 1978–79, leaving RHDI per head almost 30% higher in 1979 than it was in 1970.[18] This was a greater increase than was experienced in either the decade before (the 1960s) or the decade that followed (the 1980s).” The two periods you mention, 72–73 and 78–79, were spikes inside a decade of awful performance. 72–73 was the dash for growth that triggered the worst inflation the UK has ever had, which forced huge pay rises that distorted the figures you are mentioning. The IMF bailout in 76, was an embarrassment. 78–79 was a swing into positive productivity, but it was a blip, followed by the Winter of Discontent. The 70s was a car crash of a decade. …that STILL averaged 2.7% growth, whilst taxing the better off more than we do now. It isn’t 2.7% growth on top of a healthy, expanding economy.. Think of it like this: 2.7% growth on a base (0.1) is virtually nothing. 2.7% growth on a base (4) is forty times larger. it is the same percentage, completely different outcome.. Explain the rise in disposable incomes then during the decade if there was no growth? Inflation was at its highest level ever in the UK. Pay rises increased to try and keep up with inflation, on paper it would look like pay was rising with positive outcomes. However, if you earn £100 and a loaf cost £1, but inflation increases caused the cost of that bread to rise to £5, and you are given a pay rise to £500, you are no better off. On paper you had a 400% pay rise, reality you were no better off." Yeah, that still doesn’t explain the rise in *disposable* incomes though, regardless of that highest ever inflation does it? You aren’t arguing with me here by the way, you are arguing with the House of Lords library. | |||
| |||
"If she raises taxes for the 'money makers', they will move it or themselves offshore. Next budget more taxes will be needed to make up the shortfall. Repeat until bankrupt. Let them go. Just make sure they are banned from doing further business in the UK. Other, more patriotic & less greedy entrepreneurs will likely fill their shoes. Sarcasm at its finest 😂😂 Well plenty of western companies have left Russia, punitive sanctions etc & it’s still standing. I’d imagine without the exorbitant costs of Putin’s ongoing war against Ukraine, it’d be more than standing. People will fill the gaps left. The effects of the rich going are overstated. The 1970s had punitive UK tax rates on the better off. Yet the UK still had decent economic growth, better growth than we have now, despite the well documented industrial unrest of the time, oil price shock of the mid ‘70s aside. Did you mean to use the 1970's as an example of the countries economic growth, when we sere dubbed the sick man of Europe and needed an IMF bailout? As an aside, the top 1% provide 29% of all income tax and the top 10% pay 60%. Losing people from the top 1% impacts the treasury. There was industrial unrest as I stated. A skyrocketing oil price & associated inflation & wage demands due to things out of the governments control. None of which alters the fact there were higher Income Tax rates on the rich than there are now & yet we had better economic growth over that decade (oil shock dip aside) than we do now. You must be misunderstanding what the 1970's growth numbers actually show. The economy was so weak and volatile that any short rise, even a tiny positive blip, skewed the figures positively. I get what you are saying, but no. From the HoL library: “Despite the macroeconomic turbulence of the 1970s, annual GDP growth still averaged 2.7% and living standards rose significantly. Growth in real household disposable income (RHDI) per head was either low or negative for much of the decade, but grew rapidly in 1972–73 and 1978–79, leaving RHDI per head almost 30% higher in 1979 than it was in 1970.[18] This was a greater increase than was experienced in either the decade before (the 1960s) or the decade that followed (the 1980s).” The two periods you mention, 72–73 and 78–79, were spikes inside a decade of awful performance. 72–73 was the dash for growth that triggered the worst inflation the UK has ever had, which forced huge pay rises that distorted the figures you are mentioning. The IMF bailout in 76, was an embarrassment. 78–79 was a swing into positive productivity, but it was a blip, followed by the Winter of Discontent. The 70s was a car crash of a decade. …that STILL averaged 2.7% growth, whilst taxing the better off more than we do now. It isn’t 2.7% growth on top of a healthy, expanding economy.. Think of it like this: 2.7% growth on a base (0.1) is virtually nothing. 2.7% growth on a base (4) is forty times larger. it is the same percentage, completely different outcome.. Explain the rise in disposable incomes then during the decade if there was no growth? Inflation was at its highest level ever in the UK. Pay rises increased to try and keep up with inflation, on paper it would look like pay was rising with positive outcomes. However, if you earn £100 and a loaf cost £1, but inflation increases caused the cost of that bread to rise to £5, and you are given a pay rise to £500, you are no better off. On paper you had a 400% pay rise, reality you were no better off. Yeah, that still doesn’t explain the rise in *disposable* incomes though, regardless of that highest ever inflation does it? You aren’t arguing with me here by the way, you are arguing with the House of Lords library." I’m not arguing with anyone, I’m saying that you’re misinterpreting the data. I’ve looked at the HoL Library and this is what it actually says about the 1970s: “The decade was one of severe macroeconomic turbulence, high inflation, volatile output, and structural weakness.” It also says. “Growth in real household disposable income (RHDI) per head was either low or negative for much of the decade, but grew rapidly in 1972–73 and 1978–79.” Those two spikes are what I have already mentioned and explained, I will repeat. The 72–73 rise was dash for growth, followed by the IMF bailout and the highest inflation in UK history. The 78–79 rise looks great because it was measured against a very low base, as in my 2.7% example even a slight improvement shows as a big percentage uplift but against such low numbers means virtually nothing. that was followed straight away by the winter of discontent, power cuts, a 2–3 day working week, and wages were down the drain. If you still can't see how the figures are not painting the whole picture, we should agree to disagree. | |||
"If she raises taxes for the 'money makers', they will move it or themselves offshore. Next budget more taxes will be needed to make up the shortfall. Repeat until bankrupt. Let them go. Just make sure they are banned from doing further business in the UK. Other, more patriotic & less greedy entrepreneurs will likely fill their shoes. Sarcasm at its finest 😂😂 Well plenty of western companies have left Russia, punitive sanctions etc & it’s still standing. I’d imagine without the exorbitant costs of Putin’s ongoing war against Ukraine, it’d be more than standing. People will fill the gaps left. The effects of the rich going are overstated. The 1970s had punitive UK tax rates on the better off. Yet the UK still had decent economic growth, better growth than we have now, despite the well documented industrial unrest of the time, oil price shock of the mid ‘70s aside. Did you mean to use the 1970's as an example of the countries economic growth, when we sere dubbed the sick man of Europe and needed an IMF bailout? As an aside, the top 1% provide 29% of all income tax and the top 10% pay 60%. Losing people from the top 1% impacts the treasury. There was industrial unrest as I stated. A skyrocketing oil price & associated inflation & wage demands due to things out of the governments control. None of which alters the fact there were higher Income Tax rates on the rich than there are now & yet we had better economic growth over that decade (oil shock dip aside) than we do now. You must be misunderstanding what the 1970's growth numbers actually show. The economy was so weak and volatile that any short rise, even a tiny positive blip, skewed the figures positively. I get what you are saying, but no. From the HoL library: “Despite the macroeconomic turbulence of the 1970s, annual GDP growth still averaged 2.7% and living standards rose significantly. Growth in real household disposable income (RHDI) per head was either low or negative for much of the decade, but grew rapidly in 1972–73 and 1978–79, leaving RHDI per head almost 30% higher in 1979 than it was in 1970.[18] This was a greater increase than was experienced in either the decade before (the 1960s) or the decade that followed (the 1980s).” The two periods you mention, 72–73 and 78–79, were spikes inside a decade of awful performance. 72–73 was the dash for growth that triggered the worst inflation the UK has ever had, which forced huge pay rises that distorted the figures you are mentioning. The IMF bailout in 76, was an embarrassment. 78–79 was a swing into positive productivity, but it was a blip, followed by the Winter of Discontent. The 70s was a car crash of a decade. …that STILL averaged 2.7% growth, whilst taxing the better off more than we do now. It isn’t 2.7% growth on top of a healthy, expanding economy.. Think of it like this: 2.7% growth on a base (0.1) is virtually nothing. 2.7% growth on a base (4) is forty times larger. it is the same percentage, completely different outcome.. Explain the rise in disposable incomes then during the decade if there was no growth? Inflation was at its highest level ever in the UK. Pay rises increased to try and keep up with inflation, on paper it would look like pay was rising with positive outcomes. However, if you earn £100 and a loaf cost £1, but inflation increases caused the cost of that bread to rise to £5, and you are given a pay rise to £500, you are no better off. On paper you had a 400% pay rise, reality you were no better off. Yeah, that still doesn’t explain the rise in *disposable* incomes though, regardless of that highest ever inflation does it? You aren’t arguing with me here by the way, you are arguing with the House of Lords library. I’m not arguing with anyone, I’m saying that you’re misinterpreting the data. I’ve looked at the HoL Library and this is what it actually says about the 1970s: “The decade was one of severe macroeconomic turbulence, high inflation, volatile output, and structural weakness.” It also says. “Growth in real household disposable income (RHDI) per head was either low or negative for much of the decade, but grew rapidly in 1972–73 and 1978–79.” Those two spikes are what I have already mentioned and explained, I will repeat. The 72–73 rise was dash for growth, followed by the IMF bailout and the highest inflation in UK history. The 78–79 rise looks great because it was measured against a very low base, as in my 2.7% example even a slight improvement shows as a big percentage uplift but against such low numbers means virtually nothing. that was followed straight away by the winter of discontent, power cuts, a 2–3 day working week, and wages were down the drain. If you still can't see how the figures are not painting the whole picture, we should agree to disagree. "I see you miss out the very crucial ‘leaving RHDI per head almost 30% higher in 1979 than it was in 1970’. So, the bottom line is disposable income increased by 30% over that rollercoaster decade, where we taxed higher incomes more than we do now. | |||
"If she raises taxes for the 'money makers', they will move it or themselves offshore. Next budget more taxes will be needed to make up the shortfall. Repeat until bankrupt. Let them go. Just make sure they are banned from doing further business in the UK. Other, more patriotic & less greedy entrepreneurs will likely fill their shoes. Sarcasm at its finest 😂😂 Well plenty of western companies have left Russia, punitive sanctions etc & it’s still standing. I’d imagine without the exorbitant costs of Putin’s ongoing war against Ukraine, it’d be more than standing. People will fill the gaps left. The effects of the rich going are overstated. The 1970s had punitive UK tax rates on the better off. Yet the UK still had decent economic growth, better growth than we have now, despite the well documented industrial unrest of the time, oil price shock of the mid ‘70s aside. Did you mean to use the 1970's as an example of the countries economic growth, when we sere dubbed the sick man of Europe and needed an IMF bailout? As an aside, the top 1% provide 29% of all income tax and the top 10% pay 60%. Losing people from the top 1% impacts the treasury. There was industrial unrest as I stated. A skyrocketing oil price & associated inflation & wage demands due to things out of the governments control. None of which alters the fact there were higher Income Tax rates on the rich than there are now & yet we had better economic growth over that decade (oil shock dip aside) than we do now. You must be misunderstanding what the 1970's growth numbers actually show. The economy was so weak and volatile that any short rise, even a tiny positive blip, skewed the figures positively. I get what you are saying, but no. From the HoL library: “Despite the macroeconomic turbulence of the 1970s, annual GDP growth still averaged 2.7% and living standards rose significantly. Growth in real household disposable income (RHDI) per head was either low or negative for much of the decade, but grew rapidly in 1972–73 and 1978–79, leaving RHDI per head almost 30% higher in 1979 than it was in 1970.[18] This was a greater increase than was experienced in either the decade before (the 1960s) or the decade that followed (the 1980s).” The two periods you mention, 72–73 and 78–79, were spikes inside a decade of awful performance. 72–73 was the dash for growth that triggered the worst inflation the UK has ever had, which forced huge pay rises that distorted the figures you are mentioning. The IMF bailout in 76, was an embarrassment. 78–79 was a swing into positive productivity, but it was a blip, followed by the Winter of Discontent. The 70s was a car crash of a decade. …that STILL averaged 2.7% growth, whilst taxing the better off more than we do now. It isn’t 2.7% growth on top of a healthy, expanding economy.. Think of it like this: 2.7% growth on a base (0.1) is virtually nothing. 2.7% growth on a base (4) is forty times larger. it is the same percentage, completely different outcome.. Explain the rise in disposable incomes then during the decade if there was no growth? Inflation was at its highest level ever in the UK. Pay rises increased to try and keep up with inflation, on paper it would look like pay was rising with positive outcomes. However, if you earn £100 and a loaf cost £1, but inflation increases caused the cost of that bread to rise to £5, and you are given a pay rise to £500, you are no better off. On paper you had a 400% pay rise, reality you were no better off. Yeah, that still doesn’t explain the rise in *disposable* incomes though, regardless of that highest ever inflation does it? You aren’t arguing with me here by the way, you are arguing with the House of Lords library." Disposable income is a funny old thing. The one thing that inflation was good for back in the 70's/80's was eating into mortgage costs. Yes interest rates were high but in a few short years that big mortgage became almost peppercorn. I know mine did. Extra disposable income can come from many different directions. | |||
"If she raises taxes for the 'money makers', they will move it or themselves offshore. Next budget more taxes will be needed to make up the shortfall. Repeat until bankrupt. Let them go. Just make sure they are banned from doing further business in the UK. Other, more patriotic & less greedy entrepreneurs will likely fill their shoes. Sarcasm at its finest 😂😂 Well plenty of western companies have left Russia, punitive sanctions etc & it’s still standing. I’d imagine without the exorbitant costs of Putin’s ongoing war against Ukraine, it’d be more than standing. People will fill the gaps left. The effects of the rich going are overstated. The 1970s had punitive UK tax rates on the better off. Yet the UK still had decent economic growth, better growth than we have now, despite the well documented industrial unrest of the time, oil price shock of the mid ‘70s aside. Did you mean to use the 1970's as an example of the countries economic growth, when we sere dubbed the sick man of Europe and needed an IMF bailout? As an aside, the top 1% provide 29% of all income tax and the top 10% pay 60%. Losing people from the top 1% impacts the treasury. There was industrial unrest as I stated. A skyrocketing oil price & associated inflation & wage demands due to things out of the governments control. None of which alters the fact there were higher Income Tax rates on the rich than there are now & yet we had better economic growth over that decade (oil shock dip aside) than we do now. You must be misunderstanding what the 1970's growth numbers actually show. The economy was so weak and volatile that any short rise, even a tiny positive blip, skewed the figures positively. I get what you are saying, but no. From the HoL library: “Despite the macroeconomic turbulence of the 1970s, annual GDP growth still averaged 2.7% and living standards rose significantly. Growth in real household disposable income (RHDI) per head was either low or negative for much of the decade, but grew rapidly in 1972–73 and 1978–79, leaving RHDI per head almost 30% higher in 1979 than it was in 1970.[18] This was a greater increase than was experienced in either the decade before (the 1960s) or the decade that followed (the 1980s).” The two periods you mention, 72–73 and 78–79, were spikes inside a decade of awful performance. 72–73 was the dash for growth that triggered the worst inflation the UK has ever had, which forced huge pay rises that distorted the figures you are mentioning. The IMF bailout in 76, was an embarrassment. 78–79 was a swing into positive productivity, but it was a blip, followed by the Winter of Discontent. The 70s was a car crash of a decade. …that STILL averaged 2.7% growth, whilst taxing the better off more than we do now. It isn’t 2.7% growth on top of a healthy, expanding economy.. Think of it like this: 2.7% growth on a base (0.1) is virtually nothing. 2.7% growth on a base (4) is forty times larger. it is the same percentage, completely different outcome.. Explain the rise in disposable incomes then during the decade if there was no growth? Inflation was at its highest level ever in the UK. Pay rises increased to try and keep up with inflation, on paper it would look like pay was rising with positive outcomes. However, if you earn £100 and a loaf cost £1, but inflation increases caused the cost of that bread to rise to £5, and you are given a pay rise to £500, you are no better off. On paper you had a 400% pay rise, reality you were no better off. Yeah, that still doesn’t explain the rise in *disposable* incomes though, regardless of that highest ever inflation does it? You aren’t arguing with me here by the way, you are arguing with the House of Lords library. I’m not arguing with anyone, I’m saying that you’re misinterpreting the data. I’ve looked at the HoL Library and this is what it actually says about the 1970s: “The decade was one of severe macroeconomic turbulence, high inflation, volatile output, and structural weakness.” It also says. “Growth in real household disposable income (RHDI) per head was either low or negative for much of the decade, but grew rapidly in 1972–73 and 1978–79.” Those two spikes are what I have already mentioned and explained, I will repeat. The 72–73 rise was dash for growth, followed by the IMF bailout and the highest inflation in UK history. The 78–79 rise looks great because it was measured against a very low base, as in my 2.7% example even a slight improvement shows as a big percentage uplift but against such low numbers means virtually nothing. that was followed straight away by the winter of discontent, power cuts, a 2–3 day working week, and wages were down the drain. If you still can't see how the figures are not painting the whole picture, we should agree to disagree.
I see you miss out the very crucial ‘leaving RHDI per head almost 30% higher in 1979 than it was in 1970’.
So, the bottom line is disposable income increased by 30% over that rollercoaster decade, where we taxed higher incomes more than we do now.
"covered that already, wages were increased to meet the highest inflation the country has ever had. Looks great people went for £10 a week to £200 per week.. Inflation, inflation. | |||
"If she raises taxes for the 'money makers', they will move it or themselves offshore. Next budget more taxes will be needed to make up the shortfall. Repeat until bankrupt. Let them go. Just make sure they are banned from doing further business in the UK. Other, more patriotic & less greedy entrepreneurs will likely fill their shoes. Sarcasm at its finest 😂😂 Well plenty of western companies have left Russia, punitive sanctions etc & it’s still standing. I’d imagine without the exorbitant costs of Putin’s ongoing war against Ukraine, it’d be more than standing. People will fill the gaps left. The effects of the rich going are overstated. The 1970s had punitive UK tax rates on the better off. Yet the UK still had decent economic growth, better growth than we have now, despite the well documented industrial unrest of the time, oil price shock of the mid ‘70s aside. Did you mean to use the 1970's as an example of the countries economic growth, when we sere dubbed the sick man of Europe and needed an IMF bailout? As an aside, the top 1% provide 29% of all income tax and the top 10% pay 60%. Losing people from the top 1% impacts the treasury. There was industrial unrest as I stated. A skyrocketing oil price & associated inflation & wage demands due to things out of the governments control. None of which alters the fact there were higher Income Tax rates on the rich than there are now & yet we had better economic growth over that decade (oil shock dip aside) than we do now. You must be misunderstanding what the 1970's growth numbers actually show. The economy was so weak and volatile that any short rise, even a tiny positive blip, skewed the figures positively. I get what you are saying, but no. From the HoL library: “Despite the macroeconomic turbulence of the 1970s, annual GDP growth still averaged 2.7% and living standards rose significantly. Growth in real household disposable income (RHDI) per head was either low or negative for much of the decade, but grew rapidly in 1972–73 and 1978–79, leaving RHDI per head almost 30% higher in 1979 than it was in 1970.[18] This was a greater increase than was experienced in either the decade before (the 1960s) or the decade that followed (the 1980s).” The two periods you mention, 72–73 and 78–79, were spikes inside a decade of awful performance. 72–73 was the dash for growth that triggered the worst inflation the UK has ever had, which forced huge pay rises that distorted the figures you are mentioning. The IMF bailout in 76, was an embarrassment. 78–79 was a swing into positive productivity, but it was a blip, followed by the Winter of Discontent. The 70s was a car crash of a decade. …that STILL averaged 2.7% growth, whilst taxing the better off more than we do now. It isn’t 2.7% growth on top of a healthy, expanding economy.. Think of it like this: 2.7% growth on a base (0.1) is virtually nothing. 2.7% growth on a base (4) is forty times larger. it is the same percentage, completely different outcome.. Explain the rise in disposable incomes then during the decade if there was no growth? Inflation was at its highest level ever in the UK. Pay rises increased to try and keep up with inflation, on paper it would look like pay was rising with positive outcomes. However, if you earn £100 and a loaf cost £1, but inflation increases caused the cost of that bread to rise to £5, and you are given a pay rise to £500, you are no better off. On paper you had a 400% pay rise, reality you were no better off. Yeah, that still doesn’t explain the rise in *disposable* incomes though, regardless of that highest ever inflation does it? You aren’t arguing with me here by the way, you are arguing with the House of Lords library. I’m not arguing with anyone, I’m saying that you’re misinterpreting the data. I’ve looked at the HoL Library and this is what it actually says about the 1970s: “The decade was one of severe macroeconomic turbulence, high inflation, volatile output, and structural weakness.” It also says. “Growth in real household disposable income (RHDI) per head was either low or negative for much of the decade, but grew rapidly in 1972–73 and 1978–79.” Those two spikes are what I have already mentioned and explained, I will repeat. The 72–73 rise was dash for growth, followed by the IMF bailout and the highest inflation in UK history. The 78–79 rise looks great because it was measured against a very low base, as in my 2.7% example even a slight improvement shows as a big percentage uplift but against such low numbers means virtually nothing. that was followed straight away by the winter of discontent, power cuts, a 2–3 day working week, and wages were down the drain. If you still can't see how the figures are not painting the whole picture, we should agree to disagree.
I see you miss out the very crucial ‘leaving RHDI per head almost 30% higher in 1979 than it was in 1970’.
So, the bottom line is disposable income increased by 30% over that rollercoaster decade, where we taxed higher incomes more than we do now.
covered that already, wages were increased to meet the highest inflation the country has ever had.
Looks great people went for £10 a week to £200 per week.. Inflation, inflation. "Wages still have to outpace inflation though right? Whatever way you want to slice & dice it, living standards had improved during the course of that decade, despite some bumps in the road. All whilst we were taxing the rich. | |||
"If she raises taxes for the 'money makers', they will move it or themselves offshore. Next budget more taxes will be needed to make up the shortfall. Repeat until bankrupt. Let them go. Just make sure they are banned from doing further business in the UK. Other, more patriotic & less greedy entrepreneurs will likely fill their shoes. Sarcasm at its finest 😂😂 Well plenty of western companies have left Russia, punitive sanctions etc & it’s still standing. I’d imagine without the exorbitant costs of Putin’s ongoing war against Ukraine, it’d be more than standing. People will fill the gaps left. The effects of the rich going are overstated. The 1970s had punitive UK tax rates on the better off. Yet the UK still had decent economic growth, better growth than we have now, despite the well documented industrial unrest of the time, oil price shock of the mid ‘70s aside. Did you mean to use the 1970's as an example of the countries economic growth, when we sere dubbed the sick man of Europe and needed an IMF bailout? As an aside, the top 1% provide 29% of all income tax and the top 10% pay 60%. Losing people from the top 1% impacts the treasury. There was industrial unrest as I stated. A skyrocketing oil price & associated inflation & wage demands due to things out of the governments control. None of which alters the fact there were higher Income Tax rates on the rich than there are now & yet we had better economic growth over that decade (oil shock dip aside) than we do now. You must be misunderstanding what the 1970's growth numbers actually show. The economy was so weak and volatile that any short rise, even a tiny positive blip, skewed the figures positively. I get what you are saying, but no. From the HoL library: “Despite the macroeconomic turbulence of the 1970s, annual GDP growth still averaged 2.7% and living standards rose significantly. Growth in real household disposable income (RHDI) per head was either low or negative for much of the decade, but grew rapidly in 1972–73 and 1978–79, leaving RHDI per head almost 30% higher in 1979 than it was in 1970.[18] This was a greater increase than was experienced in either the decade before (the 1960s) or the decade that followed (the 1980s).” The two periods you mention, 72–73 and 78–79, were spikes inside a decade of awful performance. 72–73 was the dash for growth that triggered the worst inflation the UK has ever had, which forced huge pay rises that distorted the figures you are mentioning. The IMF bailout in 76, was an embarrassment. 78–79 was a swing into positive productivity, but it was a blip, followed by the Winter of Discontent. The 70s was a car crash of a decade. …that STILL averaged 2.7% growth, whilst taxing the better off more than we do now. It isn’t 2.7% growth on top of a healthy, expanding economy.. Think of it like this: 2.7% growth on a base (0.1) is virtually nothing. 2.7% growth on a base (4) is forty times larger. it is the same percentage, completely different outcome.. Explain the rise in disposable incomes then during the decade if there was no growth? Inflation was at its highest level ever in the UK. Pay rises increased to try and keep up with inflation, on paper it would look like pay was rising with positive outcomes. However, if you earn £100 and a loaf cost £1, but inflation increases caused the cost of that bread to rise to £5, and you are given a pay rise to £500, you are no better off. On paper you had a 400% pay rise, reality you were no better off. Yeah, that still doesn’t explain the rise in *disposable* incomes though, regardless of that highest ever inflation does it? You aren’t arguing with me here by the way, you are arguing with the House of Lords library. I’m not arguing with anyone, I’m saying that you’re misinterpreting the data. I’ve looked at the HoL Library and this is what it actually says about the 1970s: “The decade was one of severe macroeconomic turbulence, high inflation, volatile output, and structural weakness.” It also says. “Growth in real household disposable income (RHDI) per head was either low or negative for much of the decade, but grew rapidly in 1972–73 and 1978–79.” Those two spikes are what I have already mentioned and explained, I will repeat. The 72–73 rise was dash for growth, followed by the IMF bailout and the highest inflation in UK history. The 78–79 rise looks great because it was measured against a very low base, as in my 2.7% example even a slight improvement shows as a big percentage uplift but against such low numbers means virtually nothing. that was followed straight away by the winter of discontent, power cuts, a 2–3 day working week, and wages were down the drain. If you still can't see how the figures are not painting the whole picture, we should agree to disagree.
I see you miss out the very crucial ‘leaving RHDI per head almost 30% higher in 1979 than it was in 1970’.
So, the bottom line is disposable income increased by 30% over that rollercoaster decade, where we taxed higher incomes more than we do now.
covered that already, wages were increased to meet the highest inflation the country has ever had.
Looks great people went for £10 a week to £200 per week.. Inflation, inflation.
Wages still have to outpace inflation though right?
Whatever way you want to slice & dice it, living standards had improved during the course of that decade, despite some bumps in the road. All whilst we were taxing the rich."You are wrong, and that is all I can say. | |||
"If she raises taxes for the 'money makers', they will move it or themselves offshore. Next budget more taxes will be needed to make up the shortfall. Repeat until bankrupt. Let them go. Just make sure they are banned from doing further business in the UK. Other, more patriotic & less greedy entrepreneurs will likely fill their shoes. Sarcasm at its finest 😂😂 Well plenty of western companies have left Russia, punitive sanctions etc & it’s still standing. I’d imagine without the exorbitant costs of Putin’s ongoing war against Ukraine, it’d be more than standing. People will fill the gaps left. The effects of the rich going are overstated. The 1970s had punitive UK tax rates on the better off. Yet the UK still had decent economic growth, better growth than we have now, despite the well documented industrial unrest of the time, oil price shock of the mid ‘70s aside. Did you mean to use the 1970's as an example of the countries economic growth, when we sere dubbed the sick man of Europe and needed an IMF bailout? As an aside, the top 1% provide 29% of all income tax and the top 10% pay 60%. Losing people from the top 1% impacts the treasury. There was industrial unrest as I stated. A skyrocketing oil price & associated inflation & wage demands due to things out of the governments control. None of which alters the fact there were higher Income Tax rates on the rich than there are now & yet we had better economic growth over that decade (oil shock dip aside) than we do now. You must be misunderstanding what the 1970's growth numbers actually show. The economy was so weak and volatile that any short rise, even a tiny positive blip, skewed the figures positively. I get what you are saying, but no. From the HoL library: “Despite the macroeconomic turbulence of the 1970s, annual GDP growth still averaged 2.7% and living standards rose significantly. Growth in real household disposable income (RHDI) per head was either low or negative for much of the decade, but grew rapidly in 1972–73 and 1978–79, leaving RHDI per head almost 30% higher in 1979 than it was in 1970.[18] This was a greater increase than was experienced in either the decade before (the 1960s) or the decade that followed (the 1980s).” The two periods you mention, 72–73 and 78–79, were spikes inside a decade of awful performance. 72–73 was the dash for growth that triggered the worst inflation the UK has ever had, which forced huge pay rises that distorted the figures you are mentioning. The IMF bailout in 76, was an embarrassment. 78–79 was a swing into positive productivity, but it was a blip, followed by the Winter of Discontent. The 70s was a car crash of a decade. …that STILL averaged 2.7% growth, whilst taxing the better off more than we do now. It isn’t 2.7% growth on top of a healthy, expanding economy.. Think of it like this: 2.7% growth on a base (0.1) is virtually nothing. 2.7% growth on a base (4) is forty times larger. it is the same percentage, completely different outcome.. Explain the rise in disposable incomes then during the decade if there was no growth? Inflation was at its highest level ever in the UK. Pay rises increased to try and keep up with inflation, on paper it would look like pay was rising with positive outcomes. However, if you earn £100 and a loaf cost £1, but inflation increases caused the cost of that bread to rise to £5, and you are given a pay rise to £500, you are no better off. On paper you had a 400% pay rise, reality you were no better off. Yeah, that still doesn’t explain the rise in *disposable* incomes though, regardless of that highest ever inflation does it? You aren’t arguing with me here by the way, you are arguing with the House of Lords library. I’m not arguing with anyone, I’m saying that you’re misinterpreting the data. I’ve looked at the HoL Library and this is what it actually says about the 1970s: “The decade was one of severe macroeconomic turbulence, high inflation, volatile output, and structural weakness.” It also says. “Growth in real household disposable income (RHDI) per head was either low or negative for much of the decade, but grew rapidly in 1972–73 and 1978–79.” Those two spikes are what I have already mentioned and explained, I will repeat. The 72–73 rise was dash for growth, followed by the IMF bailout and the highest inflation in UK history. The 78–79 rise looks great because it was measured against a very low base, as in my 2.7% example even a slight improvement shows as a big percentage uplift but against such low numbers means virtually nothing. that was followed straight away by the winter of discontent, power cuts, a 2–3 day working week, and wages were down the drain. If you still can't see how the figures are not painting the whole picture, we should agree to disagree.
I see you miss out the very crucial ‘leaving RHDI per head almost 30% higher in 1979 than it was in 1970’.
So, the bottom line is disposable income increased by 30% over that rollercoaster decade, where we taxed higher incomes more than we do now.
covered that already, wages were increased to meet the highest inflation the country has ever had.
Looks great people went for £10 a week to £200 per week.. Inflation, inflation.
Wages still have to outpace inflation though right?
Whatever way you want to slice & dice it, living standards had improved during the course of that decade, despite some bumps in the road. All whilst we were taxing the rich.
You are wrong, and that is all I can say. "The HoL says differently. | |||
| |||
"If she raises taxes for the 'money makers', they will move it or themselves offshore. Next budget more taxes will be needed to make up the shortfall. Repeat until bankrupt. Let them go. Just make sure they are banned from doing further business in the UK. Other, more patriotic & less greedy entrepreneurs will likely fill their shoes. Sarcasm at its finest 😂😂 Well plenty of western companies have left Russia, punitive sanctions etc & it’s still standing. I’d imagine without the exorbitant costs of Putin’s ongoing war against Ukraine, it’d be more than standing. People will fill the gaps left. The effects of the rich going are overstated. The 1970s had punitive UK tax rates on the better off. Yet the UK still had decent economic growth, better growth than we have now, despite the well documented industrial unrest of the time, oil price shock of the mid ‘70s aside. Did you mean to use the 1970's as an example of the countries economic growth, when we sere dubbed the sick man of Europe and needed an IMF bailout? As an aside, the top 1% provide 29% of all income tax and the top 10% pay 60%. Losing people from the top 1% impacts the treasury. There was industrial unrest as I stated. A skyrocketing oil price & associated inflation & wage demands due to things out of the governments control. None of which alters the fact there were higher Income Tax rates on the rich than there are now & yet we had better economic growth over that decade (oil shock dip aside) than we do now. You must be misunderstanding what the 1970's growth numbers actually show. The economy was so weak and volatile that any short rise, even a tiny positive blip, skewed the figures positively. I get what you are saying, but no. From the HoL library: “Despite the macroeconomic turbulence of the 1970s, annual GDP growth still averaged 2.7% and living standards rose significantly. Growth in real household disposable income (RHDI) per head was either low or negative for much of the decade, but grew rapidly in 1972–73 and 1978–79, leaving RHDI per head almost 30% higher in 1979 than it was in 1970.[18] This was a greater increase than was experienced in either the decade before (the 1960s) or the decade that followed (the 1980s).” The two periods you mention, 72–73 and 78–79, were spikes inside a decade of awful performance. 72–73 was the dash for growth that triggered the worst inflation the UK has ever had, which forced huge pay rises that distorted the figures you are mentioning. The IMF bailout in 76, was an embarrassment. 78–79 was a swing into positive productivity, but it was a blip, followed by the Winter of Discontent. The 70s was a car crash of a decade. …that STILL averaged 2.7% growth, whilst taxing the better off more than we do now. It isn’t 2.7% growth on top of a healthy, expanding economy.. Think of it like this: 2.7% growth on a base (0.1) is virtually nothing. 2.7% growth on a base (4) is forty times larger. it is the same percentage, completely different outcome.. Explain the rise in disposable incomes then during the decade if there was no growth? Inflation was at its highest level ever in the UK. Pay rises increased to try and keep up with inflation, on paper it would look like pay was rising with positive outcomes. However, if you earn £100 and a loaf cost £1, but inflation increases caused the cost of that bread to rise to £5, and you are given a pay rise to £500, you are no better off. On paper you had a 400% pay rise, reality you were no better off. Yeah, that still doesn’t explain the rise in *disposable* incomes though, regardless of that highest ever inflation does it? You aren’t arguing with me here by the way, you are arguing with the House of Lords library. I’m not arguing with anyone, I’m saying that you’re misinterpreting the data. I’ve looked at the HoL Library and this is what it actually says about the 1970s: “The decade was one of severe macroeconomic turbulence, high inflation, volatile output, and structural weakness.” It also says. “Growth in real household disposable income (RHDI) per head was either low or negative for much of the decade, but grew rapidly in 1972–73 and 1978–79.” Those two spikes are what I have already mentioned and explained, I will repeat. The 72–73 rise was dash for growth, followed by the IMF bailout and the highest inflation in UK history. The 78–79 rise looks great because it was measured against a very low base, as in my 2.7% example even a slight improvement shows as a big percentage uplift but against such low numbers means virtually nothing. that was followed straight away by the winter of discontent, power cuts, a 2–3 day working week, and wages were down the drain. If you still can't see how the figures are not painting the whole picture, we should agree to disagree.
I see you miss out the very crucial ‘leaving RHDI per head almost 30% higher in 1979 than it was in 1970’.
So, the bottom line is disposable income increased by 30% over that rollercoaster decade, where we taxed higher incomes more than we do now.
covered that already, wages were increased to meet the highest inflation the country has ever had.
Looks great people went for £10 a week to £200 per week.. Inflation, inflation.
Wages still have to outpace inflation though right?
Whatever way you want to slice & dice it, living standards had improved during the course of that decade, despite some bumps in the road. All whilst we were taxing the rich.
You are wrong, and that is all I can say.
The HoL says differently."It does if you are taking the data in isolation or from left wing echo chambers that are keen to show that taxing wealth is viable. | |||
"If she raises taxes for the 'money makers', they will move it or themselves offshore. Next budget more taxes will be needed to make up the shortfall. Repeat until bankrupt. Let them go. Just make sure they are banned from doing further business in the UK. Other, more patriotic & less greedy entrepreneurs will likely fill their shoes. Sarcasm at its finest 😂😂 Well plenty of western companies have left Russia, punitive sanctions etc & it’s still standing. I’d imagine without the exorbitant costs of Putin’s ongoing war against Ukraine, it’d be more than standing. People will fill the gaps left. The effects of the rich going are overstated. The 1970s had punitive UK tax rates on the better off. Yet the UK still had decent economic growth, better growth than we have now, despite the well documented industrial unrest of the time, oil price shock of the mid ‘70s aside. Did you mean to use the 1970's as an example of the countries economic growth, when we sere dubbed the sick man of Europe and needed an IMF bailout? As an aside, the top 1% provide 29% of all income tax and the top 10% pay 60%. Losing people from the top 1% impacts the treasury. There was industrial unrest as I stated. A skyrocketing oil price & associated inflation & wage demands due to things out of the governments control. None of which alters the fact there were higher Income Tax rates on the rich than there are now & yet we had better economic growth over that decade (oil shock dip aside) than we do now. You must be misunderstanding what the 1970's growth numbers actually show. The economy was so weak and volatile that any short rise, even a tiny positive blip, skewed the figures positively. I get what you are saying, but no. From the HoL library: “Despite the macroeconomic turbulence of the 1970s, annual GDP growth still averaged 2.7% and living standards rose significantly. Growth in real household disposable income (RHDI) per head was either low or negative for much of the decade, but grew rapidly in 1972–73 and 1978–79, leaving RHDI per head almost 30% higher in 1979 than it was in 1970.[18] This was a greater increase than was experienced in either the decade before (the 1960s) or the decade that followed (the 1980s).” The two periods you mention, 72–73 and 78–79, were spikes inside a decade of awful performance. 72–73 was the dash for growth that triggered the worst inflation the UK has ever had, which forced huge pay rises that distorted the figures you are mentioning. The IMF bailout in 76, was an embarrassment. 78–79 was a swing into positive productivity, but it was a blip, followed by the Winter of Discontent. The 70s was a car crash of a decade. …that STILL averaged 2.7% growth, whilst taxing the better off more than we do now. It isn’t 2.7% growth on top of a healthy, expanding economy.. Think of it like this: 2.7% growth on a base (0.1) is virtually nothing. 2.7% growth on a base (4) is forty times larger. it is the same percentage, completely different outcome.. Explain the rise in disposable incomes then during the decade if there was no growth? Inflation was at its highest level ever in the UK. Pay rises increased to try and keep up with inflation, on paper it would look like pay was rising with positive outcomes. However, if you earn £100 and a loaf cost £1, but inflation increases caused the cost of that bread to rise to £5, and you are given a pay rise to £500, you are no better off. On paper you had a 400% pay rise, reality you were no better off. Yeah, that still doesn’t explain the rise in *disposable* incomes though, regardless of that highest ever inflation does it? You aren’t arguing with me here by the way, you are arguing with the House of Lords library. I’m not arguing with anyone, I’m saying that you’re misinterpreting the data. I’ve looked at the HoL Library and this is what it actually says about the 1970s: “The decade was one of severe macroeconomic turbulence, high inflation, volatile output, and structural weakness.” It also says. “Growth in real household disposable income (RHDI) per head was either low or negative for much of the decade, but grew rapidly in 1972–73 and 1978–79.” Those two spikes are what I have already mentioned and explained, I will repeat. The 72–73 rise was dash for growth, followed by the IMF bailout and the highest inflation in UK history. The 78–79 rise looks great because it was measured against a very low base, as in my 2.7% example even a slight improvement shows as a big percentage uplift but against such low numbers means virtually nothing. that was followed straight away by the winter of discontent, power cuts, a 2–3 day working week, and wages were down the drain. If you still can't see how the figures are not painting the whole picture, we should agree to disagree.
I see you miss out the very crucial ‘leaving RHDI per head almost 30% higher in 1979 than it was in 1970’.
So, the bottom line is disposable income increased by 30% over that rollercoaster decade, where we taxed higher incomes more than we do now.
covered that already, wages were increased to meet the highest inflation the country has ever had.
Looks great people went for £10 a week to £200 per week.. Inflation, inflation.
Wages still have to outpace inflation though right?
Whatever way you want to slice & dice it, living standards had improved during the course of that decade, despite some bumps in the road. All whilst we were taxing the rich.
You are wrong, and that is all I can say.
The HoL says differently.
It does if you are taking the data in isolation or from left wing echo chambers that are keen to show that taxing wealth is viable.
"The HoL is a left wing echo chamber? Hmm okay, as you were. | |||
| |||
| |||
