Dec 2011 30

Taxpayers will have to work until 26 July to pay for the cost of government in 2012 – three more days than in 200714

As the New Year celebrations begin, the TaxPayers’ Alliance today reveals that the average person must work for 208 days in the coming year to pay for their share of the cost of government spending and regulation.

Click here to read the full report

This note extends the concept of Tax Freedom Day, which is calculated annually by the Adam Smith Institute. The Cost of Government Day measures the burden of government spending and regulation on individuals. The TaxPayers’ Alliance has calculated the date in the calendar year on which the average person has earned enough gross income to pay for their share of the cost of government spending and regulation.

  • The Cost of Government Day in 2012 will be 26 July. When the TPA last calculated this in 2007, it was 23 July
  • The average person must work for 208 days in the coming year to pay for their share of government spending and regulation combined
  • Of the total above, the average person must work for 179 days in the coming year to pay for their share of the cost of government spending
  • The average person will work to pay for government spending in 2012 until 27 June
  • Of the total above, the average person must work a further 29 days of the year to pay for their share of the cost of government regulation
  • The average person must work for nearly a month to pay off their share of the cost of government regulation in 2012

Click here to read the full report

Matthew Elliott, Chief Executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said:

“Taxpayers should be looking forward to toasting in the New Year, instead the enormous cost of Government spending and regulation means they will effectively be working for the Government until the summer. Government spending and expensive regulations are costing more than half of ordinary people’s income and this simply cannot go on. The Government needs to cut spending, get rid of burdensome regulations and cut taxes to get the economy going and leave more taxpayers’ money in their own pockets.”

Related Posts

  • http://twitter.com/ukgoldbug Gold Bug

    No wonder the economy is in a downward spiral. Our biggest and most dangerous enemy is government.

  • Anonymous

    Yet the spin is that we’re undergoing cuts. I bet you many people think tax is about a third. I hope these figures take into account VAT, duty, the TV-licence and inheritance-tax. Not only do these deductions make us poorer, but they put a huge drag on the economy. Furthermore, the so-called services we get are often rationed and delivered in a slovenly way. I think only net contributors to government should be allowed to vote – not teachers, doctors or other state-workers. A lot of state-spending is also disguised as work by charities. We have a much bigger public sector than China.

    • Sick of the South

      We are undergoing cuts. It’s just that the money saved is being spent on paying for bank bailouts, bombing Libya and overseas aid, rather than libraries, or the salries of nurses and firefighters.

      As for your gormless idea about only letting ‘net contributors’ vote, I can only suggest that if you don’t like living in a Democracy then you learn Mandarin and shove off to China.

      • Anonymous

        Our present democracy is bad in that it lets people who are in receipt of benefits from the state vote for more benefits. If one needs outdoor relief, one shouldn’t be involved in making decisions about the level of that relief; one has a vested interest. Only those who are actually paying for others’ benefits, reliefs, subsidies, rebates, handouts and grants should make decisions about them.

        • Sick of the South

          So you’re suggesting that a call centre operative (private sector) or a toilet cleaner (private sector) would be more qualified to make a decision about who runs the country than, say, a doctor (public sector) or a teacher (public sector)? One can only imagine what kind of nation we’d end up with if you had your way – Gary Barlow as PM perhaps?

          Also how exactly would one define someone who is receipt of state cash? GPs, for example, are not employed directly by the NHS but have access to the NHS pension scheme and draw the vast majority of their income from contracts with the Health Service.

          I own a small business based in the North East of England and I would say a good 40% of the contracts we carry out come from public sector organisations – would that mean that me and my employees would be banned from voting as well?

          If you don’t like living in a democracy then buy a plane ticket and leave. I hear Shenzen is lovely this time of year

          • Anonymous

            It’s not about qualifications but justice. That toilet-cleaner in the private sector will probably be paying tax and his money will be paying the wages of an NHS consultant. The cleaner-guy may be stupid, but he’s the customer in this instance. Same with companies living off government-contracts. Their ultimate customer is the taxpayer and he (however humble) needs to be in charge. We actually need to shrink the state (to a size more like China’s, or smaller) so that most people pay their way and live off their own efforts. Those in genuine need can approach the state for aid but decisions on that aid must be made by those paying for it – taxpayers, not claimants.

          • DoubleR

            stop complaining. These politicias are not aliens. They are people like us, if we were in their place. Thing is… where are the politicians that will guarantee less taxes and more crucially, WHY THEY ARE NOT VOTED? Ask yourself this. The answer is simple. The UK is a communist country that is getting redder and redder by each passing year.

          • Anonymous

            You are regrettably right, RR. However, the fact that politicians are human doesn’t excuse their venal behaviour. If I were in power I’d slash debt and the public sector. Trouble is, too many voters see the state as the fount of all wealth, the private sector as a frivolous appendage thereto.

  • Pingback: 2012: pay your taxes for 208 days, slave for 366 days « Escapee's Blog

  • Blarg1987

    I am curious how you calculate regulation, does that include statury holidays and health and safety policies, etc, and I hope you do include a deduction for amount of lost days there would be without certain pieces of regulation in place.

  • Thejaguardriver

    bastards the lot of em

  • http://twitter.com/tommy5dollar Tommy Long

    Thanks for informing me above that 29 days is almost a month…

  • Pingback: British taxpayers work more than half the year to support government « Churchmouse Campanologist

  • Tom Scott

    When you consider that the FSA’s Retail distribution Review is expected
    to costs the retail financial industry £1.7bn to implement I’m amazed
    that the cost for regulation is so low.

    Don’t think this doesn’t affect you.  If you use an IFA, bank, building
    society or insurance company you can expect them to dump this additional
    cost directly on the consumer.

    And what will this massive piece or regulation achieve.  A reduction in access to financial services and an increase in costs as well as a reduction in saving and investment meaning less money invested in UK companies.