Lower migration and the tax gap: raise taxes or ease restrictions?

Some privatisations were essential as the taxpayer couldn't afford the infrastructure improvements needed, such as the railways. Tens if not hundreds of billions were needed to replace virtually every single locomotive and carriage due to the health & safety laws, disability discrimination laws, waste disposal laws etc. Virtually our entire fleet in the 80s was non compliant. Instead of the taxpayer funding that, we got private finance to put up the money via train leasing companies, so slightly similar to PFI for hospitals and schools in the 00's.

Several train operating companies have now been put back under Government ownership and control (Northern, TPX etc) but the service/prices are no better, so it kind of disproves the theory that things are better under governmental control.

Reducing immigration is an argument that has definitely been won. Hence why even Labour are trying to reduce it. It only benefits big business as they have access to a cheap workforce. I though that would be something you would be against?

Thing is, when you say it is not working, in what way is it not working ?

Because while likes of Farage say things will be better HIS way, they might equally be worse. And also worth remembering, that it is likes of Farage who is shouting loudest that " ITS NOT WORKING".

So how is it not working ?

Where are 1.2 million jobs coming from? I work in retail and we’ve been told that the usual Christmas temps that we take on won’t be happening this year. A lot of my staff are classed as being on benefits because their wages are topped up with UC, the national insurance hike has made the situation worse because when a full timer has left they now take on three people on low hours so they don’t have to pay the national insurance.

Yes, it needed radical overhaul, which is what it got with privatisation. Unfortunately, as with lots of the privatisations, there wasn't the proper scrutiny, control and oversight, with the regulators being unfit for purpose and inadequate safeguards re value for money etc. Just like hospitals and schools PFI. Just like HS2. We have exactly the same problems with privatisation and nationalisation, i.e. useless politicians and civil servants in overall control/management/supervision who couldn't run a piss up in a brewery. It's why the re-nationalised train operating firms are no better - same staff, same management, same unions, just been "Tupe'd" over and continuing to do the same as previously. It's why nothing will ever change.

It's not my graph. It's world data. And you can interact with it. Tick countries, sort ascending or descending etc.

Select the country you would like the UK to emulate, level of service etc. Then set the graph to compare.

From that site for example, Sweden is 26.1% of GDP on welfare, UK is 23%.

The USA is 19.8%. So do you want the UK to be more like Sweden, or more like the USA. Sweden is up; the USA is down.

There is a huge difference though between spend on health, pensions, family, active labour market programs and working age welfare. In your graph it's all bulked together so impossible to make any meaningful conclusion.

In Sweden childcare in universally free/heavily subsidised (high earners not excluded), but unemployment benefits are time limited and linked to previous earnings. Of course it would be much better to have such system.

ETA: UK is about 20th in terms of GDP per capita, so 17th in welfare table is a bit higher than it should be

Get those people not in work into work that can work. There are 1.2 million of them. AI will mean we will have a lot more people unemployed over the next few years. We shouldn't be importing people who will need to rely on taxpayers. I feel this argument has already been had and won in the country?

British Rail was AWFUL! Or it was where I used to get the train to school. Always really late, dirty, amd with those awful single compartment carriages that you couldn't escape from while the train was moving.

But most of the money paid in welfare goes back into the economy. And that economy pays tax.

Consider something like bread. Zero VAT. But the farmers, the drivers, the bakers, all pay tax. So a chunk of that goes back to government.

So lets change the system where the rich get richer. That does not mean they buy more bread. But now the poor can't afford bread. Bread sales go down, bread price goes up, because economy of scale.

Cut benefits, and tax revenues go down.

There is a huge difference though between spend on health, pensions, family, active labour market programs and working age welfare. In your graph it's all bulked together so impossible to make any meaningful conclusion.

In Sweden childcare in universally free/heavily subsidised (high earners not excluded), but unemployment benefits are time limited and linked to previous earnings. Of course it would be much better to have such system.

ETA: UK is about 20th in terms of GDP per capita, so 17th in welfare table is a bit higher than it should be

Some privatisations were essential as the taxpayer couldn't afford the infrastructure improvements needed, such as the railways. Tens if not hundreds of billions were needed to replace virtually every single locomotive and carriage due to the health & safety laws, disability discrimination laws, waste disposal laws etc. Virtually our entire fleet in the 80s was non compliant. Instead of the taxpayer funding that, we got private finance to put up the money via train leasing companies, so slightly similar to PFI for hospitals and schools in the 00's.

Several train operating companies have now been put back under Government ownership and control (Northern, TPX etc) but the service/prices are no better, so it kind of disproves the theory that things are better under governmental control.

Has the argument actually been had and won? I'm not convinced that it has.

What exactly are you proposing needs to happen to get all of these people back into work and contributing at a level which will replace the lost tax revenue?

To quote the OP " "In the short term, the biggest impact will be on social care, already struggling with workforce pressures and years of underfunding."

I think there is another factor in here, and reform will make it even worse. Privatization.

We have ended up with loads of private companies, all competing on cost. This drives down the wages of people working in this sector, to the point where they need government benefits to survive. And the companies, who are being paid for by the taxpayer for services, all have shareholders, who are taking a cut.

We should be bringing public services back into public ownership, not farming them out to the lowest bidder, who then takes a chunk of the money.

To me, it's like the government pay an agency to do something. The agency charges 20 quid an hour. Pays the worker 10 quid and keeps 10. Meanwhile, the worker can't live on a tenner, so the government pay them an
extra fiver in benefits.

Cut out the agency, and the guv could pay 15 to the worker, and save a fiver cos they are not paying the agency.

Over simple I know. But hey.

I say no to that. Because look at the stongest economies in terms of percapita GDP. All high welfare states. I looked it up the other day, and the UK is something like 17th in the world in terms of % of total GDP spend on welfare.

The data global data says, less welfare = lower per capita GDP.

You can play with the data here. It is pretty interesting.

Public social spending as share of GDP (ourworldindata.org)

It doesn’t seem to working.

With the record welfare bill we have the economy ought to be booming, if your Economics 101 was right.

I say no to that. Because look at the stongest economies in terms of percapita GDP. All high welfare states. I looked it up the other day, and the UK is something like 17th in the world in terms of % of total GDP spend on welfare.

The data global data says, less welfare = lower per capita GDP.

You can play with the data here. It is pretty interesting.

Public social spending as share of GDP (ourworldindata.org)

It’s Economics 101.

Well, we’ve been paying the high benefit bill for years and if your theory was right, then things would be all
rosy and fragrant by now, which does not appear to be the case.

Time to try the other option.

Cut benefits, cut immigration, cut tax.

It’s Economics 101.

Well, we’ve been paying the high benefit bill for years and if your theory was right, then things would be all
rosy and fragrant by now, which does not appear to be the case.

Time to try the other option.

Cut benefits, cut immigration, cut tax.

where did you learn this? on TicTok or reddit?

But most of the money paid in welfare goes back into the economy. And that economy pays tax.

Consider something like bread. Zero VAT. But the farmers, the drivers, the bakers, all pay tax. So a chunk of that goes back to government.

So lets change the system where the rich get richer. That does not mean they buy more bread. But now the poor can't afford bread. Bread sales go down, bread price goes up, because economy of scale.

Cut benefits, and tax revenues go down.

But most of the money paid in welfare goes back into the economy. And that economy pays tax.

Consider something like bread. Zero VAT. But the farmers, the drivers, the bakers, all pay tax. So a chunk of that goes back to government.

So lets change the system where the rich get richer. That does not mean they buy more bread. But now the poor can't afford bread. Bread sales go down, bread price goes up, because economy of scale.

Cut benefits, and tax revenues go down.