Even the 2% is suspect, if as I suspect, all the cold war warrior pensions are included in the sum.
Welfare given the standards of the 1950’s would, as suggested above, been cheaper, but so was military equipment. A Hunter was pushing the boundary at the time, but was still a basic bit of kit.
Then there is MoD. Just one very minor example. Why do the AEF’s drive cadets around in bone domes, parachutes, and L/
Js with pilots wearing expensive gear when the local flying club do it in shirt sleeves?
There was also (very) full employment in the 50’s. That stopped with Mrs. T and her ‘reforms’ (and please don’t thread creep as to whether they were necessary or not) but to effectively use the North Sea Oil revenues as benefits to keep over 3,000,000 unemployed seems to have been a waste. I offer Norway’s sovereign fund as an alternative.
As for tax and the requirement to pay it. Globalisation and the ability of large multi- nationals to look upon tax as optional extra, hits the Treasury estimates. It also means the likes of us have to make up the shortfall in personal taxation. Although 6 billion on a fire HQ system that did not work, 6 billion on an NHS computer system that did not work, 5 billion on a totally botched NHS reorganisation that Mr. Hunt is still trying to sort out, makes one reluctant to pay more than necessary.
But there is the inconsistency of the British, who have always wanted Scandinavian levels of health care and benefits, with American levels of taxation and government spending.
Hey ho, don’t we all wish we knew the answers?