Margaret Thatcher: Rescuer of England?

On the subject of Margaret Thatcher, who was discussed yesterday, I found a web site referring to the 98% tax rate, although it seems as though it might be biased...

http://www.ncpa.org/edo/bb/ 2004/20040517bb.htm

"In 1979, the basic tax rate was 33 percent and the top rate went as high as 98 percent--83 percent on wages and an additional 15 percent surcharge on so-called unearned income such as interest and dividends."

I don't see how you could add the 83 percent tax on wages with the 15 percent tax on something completely different, if someone can explain how this quote makes sense, please indulge me.


"On May 4, 1979, Conservatives won control of Parliament, making Mrs. Thatcher prime minister. She quickly set about implementing her agenda. Just one month later, the basic rate of taxation was cut from 33 percent to 30 percent and the top rate on wages went down from 83 percent to 60 percent. In subsequent years, the basic rate was reduced to 25 percent and the top rate lowered to 40 percent."

She cut taxes, not too much of a surprise there, and I think we can all agree that even 83 percent is pretty steep, but let's get real, those were not low-income earners. Here in Sweden, there was a big news story of a famous author whose taxes added up to a total marginal tax rate of 102% in 1976.

The author in the TYT interview, Claire Berlinski, seems to claim that an optimal taxation would amount to 14% of GDP, which would mean slashing all taxes in half. Of course, according to her, the income would be greater. Thus cutting taxes in half would more than double the GDP.

I. Am. Sceptical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik i/List_of_countries_by_tax_ revenue_as_percentage_of_GD P

As you can see, the US is hardly in the top.


"Mrs. Thatcher resigned as prime minister in 1990 and joined the House of Lords in 1992. Even her sternest critics admit that her reforms were necessary and beneficial to the country."

It rather seems to me that a lot of Brits nowadays are very critical of Thatcher, to an extent that I wonder whether it's really deserved. After all, she was popular enough to stay in power for a decade in her day, and as far as I can make out the labour government that preceeded her had failed. Any British Young Turks who would care to comment?
< The AccoLade - all-girl Saudi rock band | Bush's ever expanding Rouges Gallery examined by Rachel Maddow >
 Display:
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables> <w:SnapToGridInCell> <w:WrapTextWithPunct> <w:UseAsianBreakRules> <w:DontGrowAutofit> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui ) } </style> <![endif]--> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:"&qu ot;; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan ; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:&qu ot;Times New Roman";} p {mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0cm; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0cm; mso-pagination:widow-orphan ; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:&qu ot;Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt; mso-header-margin:36.0pt; mso-footer-margin:36.0pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> <!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.000 1pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan ; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->

I was born and raised under Thatcher in the UK. There are a lot of positive things that she did which were necessary; however on the flip side some of the legacy of her time in power is still negatively affecting the county.

Positive things: She broke the power of the unions which had been holding back economic development in the British Isles. Employment laws were loosened, taxes did fall. Overall income went up. All true.

Negative things: To achieve the tax cuts she reduced infrastructure spending, Healthcare spending, education spending (She took away my free school milk). She sold off almost all of the utilities for a pittance; the country did not get a decent price for the privatization of many of the industries. She sold off the council house stock, this allowed many people to own their own homes but due to the low price and the money being used for (short term) tax cuts, The UK now has a huge deficit in social housing increasing homelessness dramatically.  

 So I would say that there were plently of short term and necessary changes however the price that we paid for them was to high. Had decent levels of investment in education, health and infrastruture been made at the time, the current government wouldn't have had to spend the huge ammounts of money it has had to just to maintain the crumbling services.

by Xunling on 11/27/2008 12:43:01 PM EST


Well first lets say she was the prime minister of the United Kingdom, one constituent part of which is Wales.

Wales was severely damaged by the conservative government in the 80's, the hurried closure of the coal mines, and the lack of investment in infrastructure which is only now being rectified by the Labour Welsh Assembly caused mass unemployment and hardship for welsh people.

This could have been eased by improving rail links and retraining of the work force, but the conservatives thought differently and left them to rot in a hole. I believe that its now called social darwinism.

I cannot emphases enough the hatred many welsh people have for Thatcher.  I myself dislike what she did, and believe that she could have taken a much kinder approach to those communities.

As for saving Britain, she trashed manufacturing and was only saved by the discovery of North Sea oil, privatising everything she could get her hands on.  Yes she did change something’s that needed changing but she hurt so many in the process and we still have the legacy to live with.

 Don't get me started... :)



by nadoom on 11/27/2008 06:18:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Internet Archive: Details: The Power of Nightmares

Look especially For "the Mayfair set" and "The Century of the Self" the basic problem was that Thatcher started by removing all the laws that held people accountable, and everybody drank the Koolade that these unsocialized folk would do the best thing. 

Only after the whole nonsense was revealed as a giant ponzi scheme did everyone wake up and say "oh wow we were duped". Of course British Industry was destroyed by then. Then they did it again in the US and the same thing happened AGAIN!

So now Obama will face the same disaster that the UK had after Thatcher but many times worse. We may have enough residual wealth in knowledge and creaking infrastructure to recover, but it will take years just to stop the bleeding cause by the current Gang Of Pirates much less a positive result.

by FreeDem on 11/27/2008 09:30:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
 Display: