Member Info for asimpleinvestor

Quote "Remember the rolling stones exiting the UK in terms of Domicile for tax as the government wanted to take up to 95% of their hard earned..."

Not quite the whole story is it. When the band fled to the South of France in April 1971, they did not just leave to avoid future tax; they were facing a massive retrospective tax bill. Due to severe financial mismanagement by their early representation (including Allen Klein), the band discovered they owed hundreds of thousands of pounds to the Inland Revenue money they simply did not have. They gradually paid off the outstanding historical UK tax debts in full. This cleared them of criminal liability or the threat of asset seizure, allowing them to visit the UK for brief periods without being arrested.

"UK tax burden stands at 37% in 2026, while UK has plunged to no.30 worldwide by GDP per head."

@skier1 Again for context

The data for 2026 is highly accurate, reflecting the long-term structural shifts in the UK economy over the last century:

1. The Tax Burden

The assertion that the UK tax burden stands at 37% in 2026 is accurate. Official forecasts published by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) confirm that the UK's tax-to-GDP ratio has reached 37.0% for the 2026–27 fiscal year. Driven by frozen personal tax thresholds and policy adjustments, this trajectory represents the highest sustained tax take in the UK since the aftermath of the Second World War.

2. Global Wealth Ranking

The claim that the UK sits at No. 30 worldwide by GDP per head is broadly accurate, depending on the metric used:

Purchasing Power Parity (PPP): In the International Monetary Fund (IMF) global rankings, the UK sits at approximately 37th globally, with a GDP per capita of around £45,300 per head (PPP). This ranking place the UK behind several smaller economies, oil-rich nations, and financial hubs (such as Ireland, Singapore, and Luxembourg), as well as major peers like the US and Germany.

Nominal Terms: If measured purely in raw exchange rates without adjusting for local living costs, the UK sits slightly higher, around 20th to 22nd globally, with a GDP per capita of approximately £40,900.

The Century-Long Trajectory

When contrasted with the 1900 data, the figures highlight a complete reversal of the UK’s economic model. In 1900, a low domestic tax burden (13%) and an expansive global empire supported the world's second-highest GDP per capita. In 2026, operating as a standalone service economy without imperial networks, the UK manages a significantly larger domestic state infrastructure, resulting in a historically high tax burden and a mid-tier position among advanced economies.

Century-Long Economic Growth

Despite the drop in global ranking to around No. 30 (PPP), the absolute wealth of the domestic population has expanded dramatically. Comparing the inflation-adjusted figures reveals that the UK’s real GDP per capita has grown tenfold over the last 126 years, rising from roughly £4,500 in 1900 to approximately £45,300 (PPP) in 2026. This represents a massive long term expansion in absolute economic output per person, even as other nations industrialised and caught up to or surpassed the UK.

Crucially, when contrasted against the fiscal data, the growth in wealth has vastly outpaced the rising tax rate:

The total tax burden rose from 13% to 37%, an increase of just under 200%.

Real GDP per capita expanded by 900% (a tenfold total increase).

Because the absolute size of the economic pie per person grew ten times larger, the average citizen in 2026 retains significantly higher purchasing power and real disposable income after tax than their 1900 counterpart, funding a vastly superior standard of living and state safety ne

Quote "UK tax burden stood at 5% in 1900, while UK was no.2 worldwide by GDP per head."

@skier1 Context is everything.

The claim regarding the UK’s position in 1900 is broadly accurate globally, though the exact fiscal figures and structural realities differ from historical records:

1. The Tax Burden

The assertion that the total UK tax burden was 5% in 1900 is inaccurate. Long-run public finance data from the OBR and IFS shows that total government receipts sat at approximately 13% of GDP on the eve of World War I. While exceptionally low by modern standards (now above 35%), the 5% figure is often a conflation with income tax alone, which then applied to fewer than one million wealthy citizens.

2. Global Wealth Ranking and the Imperial Context

The UK was indeed No. 2 worldwide by GDP per head, having just been surpassed by the US. However, this metric only measured the domestic core (41 million people) sitting at the centre of an empire encompassing a quarter of the globe and 400 million people.

The Structure: The UK’s wealth was structurally supported by this imperial network, acting as the financial and manufacturing hub.

The Contrast: In 1900, the British Empire accounted for 20–24% of global GDP. Today, as a standalone economy of 68 million, the UK accounts for roughly 2.3%.

In 1900 cash terms, domestic GDP per capita was £41. Adjusted for inflation via Bank of England data, this equates to just £4,300 to £4,500 in today's money.

3. Domestic Poverty: Then vs. Today

In 1900: Empirical studies by Booth and Rowntree revealed that 25% to 30% of the population lived below the poverty line. Around 10% lived in "primary poverty," where total income was structurally insufficient to secure basic physical survival (food and shelter), with zero state welfare safety net.

Today: Around 20% of the population lives in relative poverty (below 60% of median income). While a significant modern issue, 1900 poverty meant widespread absolute physical destitution without public health, sanitation, or state support.

Question: Would you like to go back to those days including a GDP per capita of £4,500 in today's money, an empire to maintain, and up to 30% of the population living in absolute, un-subsidised poverty?

@Dorfan, they made exactly the same dire predictions in the 1950s and 1960s, but tax revenues actually increased as did access to jobs. Apart from a handful of high-profile celebrities who chose to become tax exiles for a few years, the vast majority of high earners simply paid the levies and got on with their lives. People forget that during the post war decades, the top marginal rates on income routinely sat above 90%, peaking at a 98% marginal rate on investment income in the 1970s.

As for your description of a country with a shrinking revenue pool, failing public services, a permanently diminished global economic status, and a self-inflicted spiral of low growth that isn't a hypothetical future scenario. That is an accurate description of what the UK has already been experiencing for several years, particularly as the structural barriers of Brexit cut off access to a large portion of the workforce, directly hitting productivity and subsequent tax revenues.

@Dorfan, JCB26 is right the government does need to look honestly at income tax rates. If we want to get properly controversial, they should consider adding 1% to the basic rate, increasing the 40% higher rate to 42%, moving the 45% additional rate to 50%, and introducing new brackets at 60% and 65%. On top of that, they could reintroduce the Surtax at 10%. What I am describing is essentially a cross between the current Scottish income tax bands and the fiscal framework of the 1950s and 1960s.

The political problem for Labour is that they explicitly promised in their manifesto that they would not touch income tax, VAT, or National Insurance. Because of that lock, the only part of this equation they could technically explore is a historical mechanism like the Surtax, given that it functions as a top-up levy on high total incomes rather than an alteration to standard income tax rates per se.

Total raised via ATM to date: £992,557.49

There is a 75%-85% probability of this going below a penny before 1st July when the placing lands as there is no transformational contract attached just a jam tomorrow suggestion of one in the near future.

There are no rules for main market shares, so they can remain suspended indefinitely. AIM shares, on the other hand, are delisted after six months, which is probably where the confusion comes from. It easier to just clear things up than to post without purpose all day.

They have one too, the nearest mains pipe is two miles away.

Note to self: Don't go out on to the patio in your bare feet

33C outside now and the plants are under heat stress even with watering (no ban here we have our own suppies).

@Gerry557 It depends on whether you mean "taxpayers" or "billpayers."

The upfront capital for major water infrastructure projects comes from private corporate finance and foreign investment, not the Treasury. If we relied solely on central government tax receipts to build everything, the national debt would skyrocket and nothing would get delivered.

However, it doesn’t cost the public nothing. The regulatory system ensures that while private investors inject the billions needed for upgrades upfront, every penny of that investment plus an Ofwat-regulated return for the investors is slowly clawed back over decades directly through our household water bills. It spares the taxpayer and the government balance sheet at the point of construction, but the consumer always foots the ultimate bill.

Good progress, real oil revenue, strong helium percentages but the only number that actually matters (sustained flow rate) is still pending.

@Dorfan The legal liability sat squarely on the individual, not the parents or guardians, provided the student was 18 or over.

Full-time college and university students were given an 80% reduction, meaning they were personally liable to pay 20% of the local rate. Because it was an individual head tax, parents had zero legal obligation to pay their adult children's bills.

As for jail, the short answer is yes. Non-payment was a civil debt, but the enforcement process was brutal. If someone defaulted, the council would get a liability order to deduct money from wages or benefits, or send bailiffs to seize goods. If the individual had no income to deduct and no assets to seize which was exactly the case for most cash-poor students the final legal recourse for "wilful refusal or culpable neglect" was a prison sentence of up to three months.

Thousands of people were summonsed to court, and a significant number of non-payers including young adults were indeed sent to prison before the system collapsed and was abandoned. I would have thought you were of an age to remember those days it was less than 35 years ago

@Dorfan We haven't had a genuine "special relationship" with the US for decades it has been nothing more than political lip service. If anything, recent shifts in Washington have shown they are increasingly becoming a security and economic liability rather than a reliable ally. We haven't had any preferential deals; they are purely transactional and have always had strings of compliance attached.

The reality of the dynamic is simple: if the US wants something and the UK complies, we get a pat on the head and told we're a good boy. If we dare say no, we are met with unilateral tariffs and ignored. That is the true nature of our current relationship.

If Burnham has genuinely burnt bridges by refusing to play along with that one-sided arrangement, then it sounds like he might actually be demonstrating real leadership for a change.

@SRBS Under the current system it doesn't matter if you own your property or rent it you still have a council tax bill to pay. Ours is a Band D property and costs £3460 per year, if we lived in Chelsea, it would be £1,643.44 or £1,047.85 in Westminster the two most expensive boroughs by property value in London. If we didn't rent out the main house on the farm it would be £4,962.70 but currently thats the responsibility of the tenant. Under the proposed rules and calculation, the cost would fall on me and would equate to £38,400per year if we don't manage to sell it first.

@Dorfan Poll tax started at age 18, and if you were unemployed and receiving benefits or on social security you were exempt. Most complaints came from working families with kids in college who had to pay. Back then, if you were unemployed, your rent, poll tax, and water rates were covered, and the only bills you had were for phone and electricity/gas, with most people on meters. Once someone got a job, all those costs kicked in, so many didn’t bother, which is why unemployment figures were so high at the time.

@Siggins Microns numbers were brilliant weren't they. Over a 16% rise and the markets aren't even open yet. Most of my tech stocks have bounced back because of those figures and not just in the US but in Japan, China and Taiwan too. It shows AI isn't dead yet.

@Bagzzz718 You forgot to include 12 months to complete it.

@spantrout Your reply answered my question about usefulness with the eloquence of a fool. Thanks. Green box for you.

@Dorfan It was an assumption on my part, and if indeed you weren't referring to the big smoke, I unreservedly apologise.

If, as you suggest, you are talking about the South of England rather than London, the data shows you would still likely find yourself better off under a Proportional Property Tax. Because council tax is currently so heavily distorted against lower-growth areas, any region outside of premium urban hotspots generally pays a higher percentage of their property's actual value than they should.

I missed your earlier point about living in an area that has seen very little transaction movement in 30 years. However, even if sales are rare, your council tax has steadily risen over that 30-year period while being anchored to an arbitrary 1991 band. Lack of local market movement usually suppresses automated valuation spikes, meaning under the proposed 0.48% system, your baseline valuation would remain steady and your actual savings would likely be even larger than you expect.

As for the Poll Tax, I was actually one of the few who thought it was a brilliant idea my own bill shrank by almost £600 at the time. My neighbour paid double what I paid because there were two adults in the household, so they fought tooth and nail to have it abolished. They too, however, were also saving almost £200 a year over the old system. When Council Tax was introduced to replace poll tax, their bill increased, as did mine, though I was single at the time so could claim the 25% single person discount. It is a strange quirk of human psychology that when a system is proposed that will actually save the majority of people money, they look at it with deep suspicion and fight it, yet they will happily accept far less efficient setups that cost them more just because they are familiar.