Do you want to discuss boring politics? (12 Viewers)

[SBT]

Not what I’m getting from the IMF.

https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/profile/JPN

This page shows government revenue as a percentage of GDP; we are talking about government spending as a percentage of GDP

The numbers you are looking for are here: https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/exp@FPP/USA/FRA/JPN/GBR/SWE/ESP/ITA/ZAF/IND

 

---

[Mucca Mad Boys]

This page shows government revenue as a percentage of GDP; we are talking about government spending as a percentage of GDP

The numbers you are looking for are here: https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/exp@FPP/USA/FRA/JPN/GBR/SWE/ESP/ITA/ZAF/IND

If you click expand the data markers (see attached), it gives you GDP expenditure, even the link you supplied had Japan on 41.66% rather than 57% as you posted - which I assumed was a typo because it was same as Germany’s.

 

[SBT]

If you click expand the data markers (see attached), it gives you GDP expenditure, even the link you supplied had Japan on 41.66% rather than 57% as you posted - which I assumed was a typo because it was same as Germany’s.

Yes Japan was a typo, sorry. Their number is a whole three percentage points lower than ours!

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Yes Japan was a typo, sorry. Their number is a whole three percentage points lower than ours!

Which quite a lot considering their economy is bigger, is growing more and their tax burden is around 10-11% lower than ours.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Which quite a lot considering their economy is bigger, is growing more and their tax burden is around 10-11% lower than ours.

Helps that they run a budget deficit yeah?

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Sometimes, you need the shock therapy. We’re arguably already in a death spiral of raising taxes continually to fund a public sector that is no longer delivering basic services to a good standard. The tax burden is being shifted onto the productive sectors of the economy (private sector & wealth creators). This invariably hollows out the tax base and this will impact ordinary workers to pick up the bill.

Even during the period of ‘austerity’ total government spending increased. Many cuts were ‘real term cuts’ i.e. actual spending increases, just not in line with inflation. If government revenues aren’t increasing because the economy is stagnating, then the costs of running everything just gets higher which is what precisely happened.

So we need shock therapy in a way that has never worked before and just led to further contraction of the economy.

Why would that shock therapy be good but shock therapy the other way around be a disaster?

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

So we need shock therapy in a way that has never worked before and just led to further contraction of the economy.

Why would that shock therapy be good but shock therapy the other way around be a disaster?

Liz Truss tried the kind of shock therapy you’re in favour of and she was outlasted by lettuce. I don’t think Starmer or Reeves wish to go the same way. Unfunded tax cuts of £45bn set in motion the events that ousted a PM. That’s the state of our public finances.

The gilt yields are higher now under this government than Truss’ government. Hence, the government is starting to backtrack on its budget that increased taxes and spending to now find pennies on the pound in cuts.

Dream on if you think it’s politically feasible to increase the government spending to the extent of our left wing friends wish to on here.

For everyone who laughed at Liz Truss’ government, it set a dangerous precedent for any government that wanted to increase public spending and/or borrowing without sufficient measures to balance the books (i.e. tax rises or spending cuts).

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Liz Truss tried the kind of shock therapy you’re in favour of and she was outlasted by lettuce. I don’t think Starmer or Reeves wish to go the same way. Unfunded tax cuts of £45bn set in motion the events that ousted a PM. That’s the state of our public finances.

The gilt yields are higher now under this government than Truss’ government. Hence, the government is starting to backtrack on its budget that increased taxes and spending to now find pennies on the pound in cuts.

Dream on if you think it’s politically feasible to increase the government spending to the extent of our left wing friends wish to on here.

For everyone who laughed at Liz Truss’ government, it set a dangerous precedent for any government that wanted to increase public spending and/or borrowing without sufficient measures to balance the books (i.e. tax rises or spending cuts).

No she didn't. She gave massive tax cuts to people that could afford the tax. Where have I ever suggested that?

And you were the one that mentioned 'shock therapy'. And what you suggests makes as much economic sense. Let's put lots of people out of work, reducing the tax take while simultaneously making them a burden on the state due to welfare, not to mention all the other costs involved with social problems arising from it like crime.

It has always led to the same outcome - further contraction of the economy and a deeper, longer recession. If economies were run on common sense then anyone doing this would see the financial markets react terribly because the outcome is always terrible. But it's not.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

A bit of context behind Reece’s Spring Statement and why Labour are penny pinching.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

No she didn't. She gave massive tax cuts to people that could afford the tax. Where have I ever suggested that?

And you were the one that mentioned 'shock therapy'. And what you suggests makes as much economic sense. Let's put lots of people out of work, reducing the tax take while simultaneously making them a burden on the state due to welfare, not to mention all the other costs involved with social problems arising from it like crime.

It has always led to the same outcome - further contraction of the economy and a deeper, longer recession. If economies were run on common sense then anyone doing this would see the financial markets react terribly because the outcome is always terrible. But it's not.

Exactly, unfunded tax cuts costing £45bn caused a market reaction that brought down a PM. The lesson here is that if a government wanted to increase spending, on public services for example, it has to be ‘funded’ otherwise the markets will react severely.

The gilts are already higher than at any point when Truss was PM which goes to show that we’re not in a good spot.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Exactly, unfunded tax cuts costing £45bn caused a market reaction that brought down a PM. The lesson here is that if a government wanted to increase spending, on public services for example, it has to be ‘funded’ otherwise the markets will react severely.

The gilts are already higher than at any point when Truss was PM which goes to show that we’re not in a good spot.

And the point I'm making is the 'funding' behind tax cuts is totally erroneous. People say "ah, but we're making cuts so they don't need funding!" when in fact they very much do because you should have to factor in the fact tax revenues go down because of people out of work and welfare and associated costs go up because those people are unemployed.

We've done the cutting public sector jobs when the private sector and economy are retracting in order to cut spending and balance the books and every single fucking time the problem just goes deeper and longer.

The public sector is sometimes required to kickstart the economy where private sector won't because they 'don't feel confident'. So basically the public sector should almost be doing the opposite of the private sector to even out the curve. When things are bad the public sector should be increasing and then you make it back during strong economic times.

 

[SBT]

Exactly, unfunded tax cuts costing £45bn caused a market reaction that brought down a PM. The lesson here is that if a government wanted to increase spending, on public services for example, it has to be ‘funded’ otherwise the markets will react severely.

The market crash during the Truss government was the result of all kinds of factors, economic and political. It does not mean there is now an inviolable rule that all large-scale public spending will necessarily trigger a financial crisis.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

The market crash during the Truss government was the result of all kinds of factors, economic and political. It does not mean there is now an inviolable rule that all large-scale public spending will necessarily trigger a financial crisis.

Is it not?

Why has chancellor called a Spring Statement that’s a budget in all but name within months of her autumn budget? Borrowing is on track to exceed £24bn, the gilts have increased (increasing costs to service public debt) and growth forecast have been halved before the headline policies actually come into affect for the 2025/26 financial year.

And the point I'm making is the 'funding' behind tax cuts is totally erroneous. People say "ah, but we're making cuts so they don't need funding!" when in fact they very much do because you should have to factor in the fact tax revenues go down because of people out of work and welfare and associated costs go up because those people are unemployed.

We've done the cutting public sector jobs when the private sector and economy are retracting in order to cut spending and balance the books and every single fucking time the problem just goes deeper and longer.

The public sector is sometimes required to kickstart the economy where private sector won't because they 'don't feel confident'. So basically the public sector should almost be doing the opposite of the private sector to even out the curve. When things are bad the public sector should be increasing and then you make it back during strong economic times.

The civil service hiring more bureaucrats and regulators will not bring growth.

If government expenditure was geared toward infrastructure building, I’d be all for it. Labour have cut several infrastructure projects to increase public sector wages and so on.

Not all government spending is bad, but if you’re increasingly taxing the productive areas of the economy to cover your public sector wages, it’s not a good sign.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Is it not?

Why has chancellor called a Spring Statement that’s a budget in all but name within months of her autumn budget? Borrowing is on track to exceed £24bn, the gilts have increased (increasing costs to service public debt) and growth forecast have been halved before the headline policies actually come into affect for the 2025/26 financial year.



The civil service hiring more bureaucrats and regulators will not bring growth.

If government expenditure was geared toward infrastructure building, I’d be all for it. Labour have cut several infrastructure projects to increase public sector wages and so on.

Not all government spending is bad, but if you’re increasingly taxing the productive areas of the economy to cover your public sector wages, it’s not a good sign.

It's quite amazing to see you write about bureaucrats and regulators will not bring growth when the very paragraph above you set out how bad the Labour govt is doing in terms of growth etc when they've been getting rid of a load of them, so we can safely say getting rid of them doesn't bring growth either.

And while I agree with you about infrastructure projects being the better route forward (and I have stated how I think Labour cutting back on them was the wrong thing to do) I don't think just getting rid of public sector workers helps, as I've pointed out before. As for regulators, some of those are absolutely necessary because people and businesses, especially those in the private sector with a profit motive, will do stuff that is hugely detrimental to society in exchange for themselves making a fast buck. 2008 largely came about because of a lack of regulation.

Reeves is facing criticism but she's doing things that a supposedly 'competent' chancellor should do. We haven't seen a Truss like reaction because she's toeing the line and doing things like keeping the fiscal rules and cutting spending. Hence all the going back on promises and doing very un-Labourlike things like welfare, benefits and job cuts. Yet the economy continues to be in the shit, That's not because of her personally being a bad chancellor. It's because that's what those policies inevitably lead to.

But any policies other than that and the markets etc. go into meltdown because it's different and they don't like it. So you're buggered either way. Don't be thinking that the economy is based on sensible, pragmatic practice. It's not. It's largely based on vibes. Like a herd of cattle, if one gets spooked and runs, the ones next to it join in as well and so on until you've got a stampede running off a cliff for no real reason.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

It's quite amazing to see you write about bureaucrats and regulators will not bring growth when the very paragraph above you set out how bad the Labour govt is doing in terms of growth etc when they've been getting rid of a load of them, so we can safely say getting rid of them doesn't bring growth either.

And while I agree with you about infrastructure projects being the better route forward (and I have stated how I think Labour cutting back on them was the wrong thing to do) I don't think just getting rid of public sector workers helps, as I've pointed out before. As for regulators, some of those are absolutely necessary because people and businesses, especially those in the private sector with a profit motive, will do stuff that is hugely detrimental to society in exchange for themselves making a fast buck. 2008 largely came about because of a lack of regulation.

Reeves is facing criticism but she's doing things that a supposedly 'competent' chancellor should do. We haven't seen a Truss like reaction because she's toeing the line and doing things like keeping the fiscal rules and cutting spending. Hence all the going back on promises and doing very un-Labourlike things like welfare, benefits and job cuts. Yet the economy continues to be in the shit, That's not because of her personally being a bad chancellor. It's because that's what those policies inevitably lead to.

But any policies other than that and the markets etc. go into meltdown because it's different and they don't like it. So you're buggered either way. Don't be thinking that the economy is based on sensible, pragmatic practice. It's not. It's largely based on vibes. Like a herd of cattle, if one gets spooked and runs, the ones next to it join in as well and so on until you've got a stampede running off a cliff for no real reason.

So many sweeping statements here.

The civil service has grown by 21%, the % of front line civil servants down to 54%, whilst salaries have increased by 27%. Non-departmental government agencies (i.e. quangos) have increased their headcount by 423% since 2019.

Oh, and the amount of gadgets (iPads, phones) has proliferated significantly and department credit spending up by £0.5bn (from £0.1 to £0.6bn) and these increases have been post-COVID.

If productivity was growing, you could perhaps justify it. Despite all these increases, it is lagging still behind pre-pandemic level so it’s apparent that there’s a lot of waste that could be better spent elsewhere.

If this doesn’t concern you, it really should because it undermines your priorities in funding frontline public services.

 

[chiefdave]

Non-departmental government agencies (i.e. quangos) have increased their headcount by 423% since 2019.

Is that not more than likely down to Brexit?

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Is that not more than likely down to Brexit?

Nope, the department for HMRC headcount has dropped by 2% and the DBT (business and international trade) has dropped by 25%. The foreign office has grown by 10% and home office 51%.

Meanwhile, the Scottish government has grown by 42%, office for gas and electricity has grown by 163% and office of qualifications and examinations grown by 75%.

Using Brexit as an explanation would be lazy.

 

[skybluetony176]

Is that not more than likely down to Brexit?

Estimated 100k extra civil servants due to Brexit. Average civil servant wage is just over £33k a year.

 

[SBAndy]

So many sweeping statements here.

The civil service has grown by 21%, the % of front line civil servants down to 54%, whilst salaries have increased by 27%. Non-departmental government agencies (i.e. quangos) have increased their headcount by 423% since 2019.

Oh, and the amount of gadgets (iPads, phones) has proliferated significantly and department credit spending up by £0.5bn (from £0.1 to £0.6bn) and these increases have been post-COVID.

If productivity was growing, you could perhaps justify it. Despite all these increases, it is lagging still behind pre-pandemic level so it’s apparent that there’s a lot of waste that could be better spent elsewhere.

If this doesn’t concern you, it really should because it undermines your priorities in funding frontline public services.

Quick point on the credit card spending: this is a method of payment. We have no information on what is being paid for on these cards, and I strongly believe they’re being used as a means of earning cashback on purchases which in turn will stretch departmental budgets further.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

So many sweeping statements here.

The civil service has grown by 21%, the % of front line civil servants down to 54%, whilst salaries have increased by 27%. Non-departmental government agencies (i.e. quangos) have increased their headcount by 423% since 2019.

Oh, and the amount of gadgets (iPads, phones) has proliferated significantly and department credit spending up by £0.5bn (from £0.1 to £0.6bn) and these increases have been post-COVID.

If productivity was growing, you could perhaps justify it. Despite all these increases, it is lagging still behind pre-pandemic level so it’s apparent that there’s a lot of waste that could be better spent elsewhere.

If this doesn’t concern you, it really should because it undermines your priorities in funding frontline public services.

Of course I'd like more of it to spent on frontline stuff, accepting that backroom staff and logistics are absolutely vital to making such a huge organisation run smoothly and efficiently. Just as you say it's lazy to blame Brexit it's lazy to go with the trope that government and the NHS in particular are inefficient and wasteful.

But what's the big plan to get the growth? If you're waiting for the private sector to do something that will ultimately benefit people then you're in for a hell of a long fucking wait. Because you may not have noticed but profits have been increasing and the ultra wealthy have got unbelievably wealthier while the rest of us suffer. Yet what do they want? To take more and give less. They are not, and never will be, the answer.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Quick point on the credit card spending: this is a method of payment. We have no information on what is being paid for on these cards, and I strongly believe they’re being used as a means of earning cashback on purchases which in turn will stretch departmental budgets further.

Direct from Gov.uk, make of it what you will.

Mass cancellation of government credit cards in crackdown on wasteful spend

The Cabinet Office instructs departments and their agencies to freeze almost all of around 20,000 Government Procurement Cards as part of plans to cut spending

www.gov.uk

A breakdown from the Telegraph:

£1,700 for ‘Project Charisma’ and £500 on ice cream: The secrets of government credit cards

A Telegraph investigation itemises the astonishing bills racked up by civil servants at the taxpayers’ expense

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Direct from Gov.uk, make of it what you will.

Mass cancellation of government credit cards in crackdown on wasteful spend

The Cabinet Office instructs departments and their agencies to freeze almost all of around 20,000 Government Procurement Cards as part of plans to cut spending

www.gov.uk

A breakdown from the Telegraph:

£1,700 for ‘Project Charisma’ and £500 on ice cream: The secrets of government credit cards

A Telegraph investigation itemises the astonishing bills racked up by civil servants at the taxpayers’ expense

www.telegraph.co.uk

Of course when this happens in the private sector it's not called wasteful, it's called providing jobs elsewhere in the economy through 'trickle down'.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Of course when this happens in the private sector it's not called wasteful, it's called providing jobs elsewhere in the economy through 'trickle down'.

The fundamental difference is, it’s not taxpayer money…

I don’t care how ‘x, y or z’ businesses spend their money, if they’re unsuccessful, they’ll go bust. The public sector won’t and it’s money we all pay into.

The private sector is bearing the brunt of the tax burden and its public sector workers are having their pay raises matched to inflation, gold plated pensions. Again, the productivity of the public sector lags significantly behind the private sector and that’s quite an achievement because the UK’s private sector lags behind other major economies.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

The fundamental difference is, it’s not taxpayer money…

I don’t care how ‘x, y or z’ businesses spend their money, if they’re unsuccessful, they’ll go bust. The public sector won’t and it’s money we all pay into.

The private sector is bearing the brunt of the tax burden and its public sector workers are having their pay raises matched to inflation, gold plated pensions. Again, the productivity of the public sector lags significantly behind the private sector and that’s quite an achievement because the UK’s private sector lags behind other major economies.

I knew that would be your response. To which the answer is it's someone's money isn't it? And they'll almost certainly be a taxpayer as well, so they are ultimately wasting taxpayers money then aren't they?

Instead of these businesses wasting this money on their expenses which will ultimately be passed onto customers (i.e. taxpayers) with higher prices they could reduce the cost of their product/service, allowing said taxpayers to spend that money elsewhere in the economy, creating further jobs. Or provide better pay to workers who themselves would then have more to spend in the economy. It all ends up at the same point.

So now workers having pay keeping up with inflation is a bad thing is it? Much better than people can buy less with the money they earn, thus resulting in less spent in other businesses costing jobs. And I tend to find 'productivity' in the private sector means treating employees like shit and cutting corners.

You're extolling the virtues of an economic idea that was debunked ages ago and only persists because those with money and power benefit from it. What you're talking about is the rationale Reeves is using to justify her actions as Chancellor, so is she doing a good job or not?

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

I knew that would be your response. To which the answer is it's someone's money isn't it? And they'll almost certainly be a taxpayer as well, so they are ultimately wasting taxpayers money then aren't they?

Instead of these businesses wasting this money on their expenses which will ultimately be passed onto customers (i.e. taxpayers) with higher prices they could reduce the cost of their product/service, allowing said taxpayers to spend that money elsewhere in the economy, creating further jobs. Or provide better pay to workers who themselves would then have more to spend in the economy. It all ends up at the same point.

So now workers having pay keeping up with inflation is a bad thing is it? Much better than people can buy less with the money they earn, thus resulting in less spent in other businesses costing jobs. And I tend to find 'productivity' in the private sector means treating employees like shit and cutting corners.

You're extolling the virtues of an economic idea that was debunked ages ago and only persists because those with money and power benefit from it. What you're talking about is the rationale Reeves is using to justify her actions as Chancellor, so is she doing a good job or not?

You very clearly do not understand how the private sector works.