Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Tired of Waiting

The Classic Gov Spending & Receipts Pie Charts, New Version, 2011-12

Recommended Posts

The Classic Gov Spending & Receipts Pie Charts, new version 2011-12

So, spending 710, receipts 589 = 121 deficit.

Another £121 billion added to the national debt - for our children to pay. Or default. Who knows.

________________________________________________________________________

budget2011.gif

Thanks to FreeTrader, for finding them originally, and not in a bleeding PDF format: http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=161388&view=findpost&p=2937419 . I just thought these charts deserve their own thread.

Edited by Tired of Waiting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assumed these were hosted on FT's own site, as in he creates all his own images that he posts from the BoE, ONS, budget etc.

Thanks for all the effort FT.

PS I've already linked to this gif elsewhere, earlier today.

Edited by daiking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Classic Gov Spending & Receipts Pie Charts, new version 2011-12

So, spending 710, receipts 589 = 121 deficit.

Another £121 billion added to the national debt - for our children to pay. Or default. Who knows.

I just don't see how the 660 billion of spending which is not debt interest cannot be cut to 540 billion, eliminating the overspend. Sure, redundancy payments etc will create additional costs but taking a two or three year view is should be straightforward, if you really wanted to do it.

Edited by cheeznbreed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't see how the 660 billion of spending which is not debt interest cannot be cut to 540 billion, eliminating the overspend. Sure, redundancy payments etc will create additional costs but taking a two or three year view is should be straightforward, if you really wanted to do it.

Excellent!

Cheeznbreed, I think you just found the best plain English substitute for the unbelievable troublesome "deficit" = government overspending!

Simple! Brilliant!

I was just going to reply to your point, saying that I agree with it, and that the government time-frame of 5 years to eliminate most of this overspending is very sensible, when I realised that you may have cracked one of the biggest communications problem in this past year, since before the election.

Many (most?) voters confuse deficit with debt, and think the government is trying to pay-off the whole national debt in 4 years - believe it or not.

This has been the deepest problem in our political-economy, the most fundamental, root problem (affecting the electorate, and the quality of their voting). I think the use of the word "overspending" instead of "deficit" would solve most of this problem.

Well, IF "overspending" instead of "deficit" were used by the main media, BBC, ITV, tabloids, etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The phrase "running a deficit" used by the media sounds almost as if the government were controlling it, in charge, guiding, purposefully to an intended target. If the phrase "falling deeper into debt" was used it would have a different nuance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The phrase "running a deficit" used by the media sounds almost as if the government were controlling it, in charge, guiding, purposefully to an intended target.

Good point.

If the phrase "falling deeper into debt" was used it would have a different nuance?

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many years in history have governments run budget surpluses?

Even under the fiscally glorious years of the last Conservative government (house boom/bust, currency collapse, flogging state assets to friends) we seemed to have run defecits for all but 1 of their years in charge.

My revised system would force governments to run balanced budgets.

Simplified tax on all transactions at a set percentage. All money transactions go via a government clearing bank which removes a set percentage of the money.

Governments campaign on what percentage will be charged under their regime.

If they start overspending then the rate is automatically increased to reflect this making that party unpopular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many (most?) voters confuse deficit with debt, and think the government is trying to pay-off the whole national debt in 4 years - believe it or not.

To be fair to the these voters they aren't helped by the fact that various politicians are very disingenuous when they are talking about this issue.

There is constant talk of "paying down the deficit", clearly this is being said to mislead people, I think most people would be horrified if the facts where laid bare. Although to be honest people lose it when such large numbers are talked about. The figures need to be adjusted to make it a bit more relevant, ie the govts a weekly wage of £589 and spends £710 a week, so borrows £121 a week to pay the bills.

Most people would grasp this reality very quickly. When you talk about billions you get peoples eyes glazing over and they don't understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent!

Cheeznbreed, I think you just found the best plain English substitute for the unbelievable troublesome "deficit" = government overspending!

Simple! Brilliant!

I was just going to reply to your point, saying that I agree with it, and that the government time-frame of 5 years to eliminate most of this overspending is very sensible, when I realised that you may have cracked one of the biggest communications problem in this past year, since before the election.

Many (most?) voters confuse deficit with debt, and think the government is trying to pay-off the whole national debt in 4 years - believe it or not.

This has been the deepest problem in our political-economy, the most fundamental, root problem (affecting the electorate, and the quality of their voting). I think the use of the word "overspending" instead of "deficit" would solve most of this problem.

Well, IF "overspending" instead of "deficit" were used by the main media, BBC, ITV, tabloids, etc...

Well, thanks, but I guess it's has not been described in plain English because they do not wish it to be described as such. There are any number of simple ways to describe a situation in which you have an income of x but consistently spend 1.1x, and why that extra 0.1 x will in the end destroy the finances, aspiration and standard of living of your household/company/nation. We're now at the point where expressing the hope that the Government will be fully funded or [God forbid] run a surplus by cutting its cloth accordingly is tantamount to wishing dark things upon the sick and needy. Anyone with half a brain knows the precisely the opposite is true.

In addition, all this 'cuts' hyperbole is a bit troubling, especially when nominal spend is forecast to increase every year. Can it reasonably be described as a cut if a Government spends less in future than the previous Government projected would be spent ? I know budgets are set years in advance and inflation must be accounted for so it's not quite as simple as that, but the protests today just go to show the difficulty in unravelling the spending commitments of the previous lot. One wonders how some of those holding placards manages their personal affairs!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, thanks, but I guess it's has not been described in plain English because they do not wish it to be described as such. (...)

But "they" who?

I understand if the Labour party doesn't want it to be understood. But why not the Tories?!

And why not the media?

I guess the BBC could be worried for its own budget, but what about the private sector media? What would they have to lose by explaining that clearly to the viewers?

One explanation could be: "let's not 'talk down the economy'. But all the 'cuts' hyperbole you correctly identifies contradicts this possibility.

I just don't get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 277 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.