Guido Fawkes claims flat taxes lead to growth. They do not as data from the IMF shows. Flat tax countries are growing at a slower rate than the rest of the world.
Earlier today, Guido Fawkes drifted from his muck raking comfort zone to offer an economic theory based on three data points. In response to blogs from myself and Labour List about Britain’s slow growth performance, the normally sharp blogger implied that the Baltic countries’ flat taxes were the reason behind their high growth rates.
Any statistician will tell you that a correlation does not make a causation. The problem for Guido is that he doesnt even have a correlation. There are 21 countries with flat taxes. Projections from the IMF show that their average expected growth rate for 2011 is 4.1 per cent.
By contrast, the global economy will grow by 4.3 per cent this year so flat tax economies are underperforming the rest of the world.
There’s a decent debate to be had about why the Baltic countries are growing faster than other European economies but to claim that it’s all down to their flat tax makes about as much as sense as claiming that heavy taxation is bad for the economy – another Guido staple.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
13 Responses to “Flat taxes do not deliver growth”
james
Amused that the link you give to debunk the “heavy taxation is bad for the economy” argument uses one less data-point than Guido (i.e just Denmark and Sweden).
Oxford Kevin
I think you’ll find that the Baltic Countries had Iceland size economic slumps. They are still further from their pre-recession gdp than the uk is. They are not good examples of the wonders of flat taxes.
Mr. Sensible
The right just do not get it.
And what did Osborne say? We would not cut the deficit on the backs of the poorest.
13eastie
Thanks for the stats lesson, Will. Your argument is apparently based on comparison of a single data point (for 2011 4.3% v 4.1%). Incontrovertible evidence of a trend?
After you’ve looked it up, please would you let us know the p-value for this?
Perhaps you’d like to treat us all to a webinar on self-aggrandising and incorrect use of the reflexive pronoun while you’re at it?
American Liberal
The mirage of flat taxes: "Flat taxes do not deliver growth" by @@WdjStraw (in @LeftFootFwd): http://t.co/Uf4HCmZ #P2