Isn't this too short of a time window to properly gauge? It takes a while to relocate and move assets. Let's see the numbers in 5 years.
I also feel the study misses the fact that it disincentives investment in the UK long term, but that's harder to objectively gauge.
It isn't hard to objectively gauge. The annual tax revenue shortfall is running at nearly £10bn this year, this is despite a high levels of earnings growth due to Labour agreeing to huge pay increases for the public sector.
There is an obsession on the left in the UK with the media being allowed to publish things that, as of the last election, disagree with the government narrative. Part of this is the construction of narratives that will focus on specific pieces of information that are misleading, as evidence that all associated claims are wrong.
This happens so consistently and often on almost every issue.
The UK has economic problems, lobbying groups have significant power in the UK, this lobbyist is part of the group saying that taxes aren't high enough and that if we just tax more then we will become a wealthy nation, they have been saying this since they were founded, tax revenue has gone up a lot and they are still saying it (because, as ever, it just hasn't been tried the right way).
To cut through the nonsense: we are taxing more and it doesn't appear to be working, tax revenue has gone up significantly over the past five years and we got poorer, the political requirement for more tax revenue is significantly outpacing the ability of the few paying tax to earn those amounts (there is a £50bn "black hole"...not deficit, just the shortfall that has opened up in the past year or so caused by the weak economy...senior Labour MPs/ministers are still pushing for welfare spending to increase significantly), and there is no limitless source of money that can be endlessly extracted from to generate revenue...we know this because the UK has devolved governments with higher income tax rates, these rates raise less revenue not more.
Btw, I will also add a general point that isn't acknowledged as a unfortunate result of recent events: the massive shortfall is based on numbers that are wildly optimistic. OBR growth forecasts were much higher than the market after Labour's election, they made no sense. OBR often produces numbers that are very helpful for the incumbent government, they did this for the Tories. Unsurprisingly, the OBR is now slashing forecasts and it is all going wrong...but this was all predictable from the start, it isn't hard, it is very obvious, it just requires being able to separate reality from motivated thinking (i.e. impossible for most people, let alone politicians who are simian in their capacity to see reality). The OP talks about the media...almost no-one covered these crooked numbers, no-one is covering it now, no-one will cover it because it disagrees with the political narrative of the "right-wing" media.
None of this is hard to objectively gauge, it is very easy to gauge because you just talk to people and look at the incentives they face. Labour and their associated lobbyists do not live on the same planet as normal people, they should not be taken as evidence of any kind of reality (lobbyists generally...you would think this would be obvious but politics is so embedded in life in the UK that they are the main source of reality).
My analysis is that if 55-64 year old were as economically active as 45-54 year olds the deficit would disappear.
The way to get this to happen is to stamp on age discrimination, provide more retraining, improve pension incentives, and tightening sick benefits sharply.
That isn't the case. Aging has very little to do with our issues. The amount of revenue generated by people in their 30s is nowhere near enough to pay for the state as it is. The biggest marginal increase in sickness benefits has been people in 20/30s.
However, I don't think the point is an economic one anyway: age discrimination is terrible, retraining is great, etc.
Generally, I don't think the issue is as simple as sickness benefits. Fifteen years ago, that would have worked. The problem is a very systemic one of allocating massive amount of economic resources to unproductive activity. For example, the massive growth in public sector employment has created this economy of skills that have no function in any capitalist society. It is far more systemic, aging will make this worse but we are nowhere near that point and there are so many easy ways to improve growth. The ultimate issue is that the UK is a low-skill economy, and there are massive incentives for this to never change.
>That isn't the case. Aging has very little to do with our issues. The amount of revenue generated by people in their 30s is nowhere near enough to pay for the state as it is. The biggest marginal increase in sickness benefits has been people in 20/30s.
Apart from "That isn't the case" (great point there) I don't understand how any part of this paragraph refutes what I wrote.
> It isn't hard to objectively gauge. The annual tax revenue shortfall is running at nearly £10bn this year, this is despite a high levels of earnings growth due to Labour agreeing to huge pay increases for the public sector.
They weren’t huge pay rises they were in line with inflation
Much of the issue with government finances relates to Hunt introducing NI cuts that weren’t affordable, the Tories giving billions to the mates during Covid, reduced GBP from Brexit and a huge hangover from the financial crisis where the public as still paying for the bankers failures
