Isn’t this the most wondrous of calculations?

In figures released to the Guardian on Wednesday, Labour said the country had lost £16.7bn in tax revenues compared with the amount that would have been in the Treasury’s coffers had the UK grown in line with the OECD average.

If we’d had more growth then government would have cost us more……

8 thoughts on “Isn’t this the most wondrous of calculations?”

  1. Could it be the deluge of regulation (demanded by the likes of the Guardian) that strangled GDP?
    After all, we have the counter example: when Trump clipped the wings of the EPA, OSHA etc US economic took off like a rocket.

  2. So, low economic growth, their concern is the impact on the gov’t and taxes, not the peeps. We exist to serve the state comrade.

  3. Rational Anarchist

    There’s a certain amount of economic illiteracy going on as well. They say that tax revenues would have been 16.7bn higher over 9 years, and that’s enough to employ 500,000 nurses, etc.

    But 16.7bn / 9 years / 500,000 nurses means you’re paying less than £4k per year for a nurse.

    Of course, they’re taking the calculated loss over 9 years and working out what you could do with it for 1 year – which doesn’t quite work.

  4. So less than £2 billion a year. Love how they give the figure of £16.7 as if it could ever be measured with any degree of accuracy.
    You can just imagine the delight in Labour circles when they came up with this wheeze to bash Boris, and yet literally no one gives a shit. Labour a currently an irrelevance.

  5. £16.7bn over 9 years? Given we’ve just spaffed £400bn up the wall in just over a year because of a bad case of the flu, that’s akin to the pocket change you find down the back of the sofa.

    I must also have missed the time in Parliament where the Labour Party voted against the current lockdown on the grounds that it was bad for economic growth……..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *