It would be interesting to know the figures as a percentage of disposable income - that it to say: is the fall caused by increased taxation?

Posted by Bishop Hill at December 21, 2005 10:14 PM

Having received a number of goats this year (in place of Christmas cards) from a number of friends, I have to say I'd prefer to get the cards; and have them give a goat on their own watch.

I think it's a real shame people only see charity as being for "foreign" people today. When anything needs doing in this country it is to Government people turn...

Posted by Rory at December 21, 2005 11:38 PM

One very easy way is to download Firefox or sign up for Adsense. The money raised will be used to send Sortapundit to Outer Mongolia to the great benefit of all.

Except perhaps the Mongolians, of course.

Posted by Tim Worstall at December 22, 2005 12:38 PM

This post is disingenuous at best.
Victorian middle classes paid much lower taxes and the state provided much less to citizens - or subjects as they were then. The disadvantaged suffered horrible conditions during their lives which were short and brutish. That wages were very low is illustrated by the high numbers of servants in middle class households.
To bemoan the welfare state's inefficiencies is fair enough but to promote Victorian society as an appropriate alternative is daft. Well perhaps some people think child labour, including prostitution, is a good thing.
Mainstream political parties differ only over a few percentage points of GDP as state spending. None wants to dismantle any of the major areas of expenditure, including the really lunatic such as the supposed independent nuclear deterrent.

Posted by Sean Flyte at December 23, 2005 06:35 PM

Mainstream political parties differ only over a few percentage points of GDP as state spending. None wants to dismantle any of the major areas of expenditure, including the really lunatic such as the supposed independent nuclear deterrent.

I find it strange you adduce the current political consensus to support the merits of state welfare spending, when at the same time you would disregard that consensus when it comes to the merits of the nuclear deterrent.

Posted by Tim at December 24, 2005 10:46 AM