Spending Review: Osborne To Reveal £11.5Bn In Cuts

[SuperChimp]

Throughout the empire days the rank of Captain was a huge Naval rank.. you really made it if you rose to that level in your career. A Captain was in charge of a whole ship. Now I read the Navy has more admirals than ships.

In the days of the Empire you had to purchase high ranks. Anything officer and above cost a lot of money. You could never rise to be a captain.

[Quicken]

In 2008 my wife earned £30,000 as a Phd qualified research scientist, with numerous publications and awards.

In 2016 my wife will be earning around £32,000 after 8 years of wage freezes. Her pension contribution will have risen from 7% to 9% so she'll actually be worse off. Factor in inflation and her real wage will be about the equivalent to about £20k in 2008 money.

Still she can always join her ex-colleagues in management consultancy and waste another scientific brain in peddling ******** to idiots.

I am in a similar boat. No automatic wage rises in my public sector research organisation.

All wage freezes are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Q

[easy2012]

In 2008 my wife earned £30,000 as a Phd qualified research scientist, with numerous publications and awards.

In 2016 my wife will be earning around £32,000 after 8 years of wage freezes. Her pension contribution will have risen from 7% to 9% so she'll actually be worse off. Factor in inflation and her real wage will be about the equivalent to about £20k in 2008 money.

Still she can always join her ex-colleagues in management consultancy and waste another scientific brain in peddling ******** to idiots.

Does she works for the 'proper public sector' - i.e. the council, the ministries/department or one of the extended public sector like the unis ( or WelcomeTrust funded research organisations ) where the Vice-Chancellors and colleagues/bosses decided to allocate whatever spare budget to themselves ?

[fluffy666]

Healey did more in a single year.

Of course, he had the advantage of inflation, or more exactly wage inflation. Nominal wage inflation if extremely handy for governments needing extra (nominal) tax revenue and workers with mortgages.

As a government, you know that if wages are rising 10% a year, then income tax revenues will also rise (indeed, disproportionately rise), so as chancellor you don't have to do much more than keep spending rises under inflation for a few years to balance the books.

Of course, at the moment we have wage deflation.. and every step the government takes is making it worse. So - as can be seen - it's virtually impossible to balance the books because you have the very hard job of cutting spending in nominal terms at the same time as tax revenues are dropping, and the two feed of of each other.

[Timak]

Does she works for the 'proper public sector' - i.e. the council, the ministries/department or one of the extended public sector like the unis ( or WelcomeTrust funded research organisations ) where the Vice-Chancellors and colleagues/bosses decided to allocate whatever spare budget to themselves ?

Proper public sector (part of the Medical Research Council).

There are lots of advantages, very secure job, decent pension, ability to do interesting work etc etc. And they get 100's of applications for every job so it isn't like the wages aren't enough to attract workers.

However it annoys me that it gets paid significantly less than central government civil servants. A friend of mine earns almost double her salary as a relatively lowly project management role in the home office.

[btl_hater]

In 2008 my wife earned £30,000 as a Phd qualified research scientist, with numerous publications and awards.

In 2016 my wife will be earning around £32,000 after 8 years of wage freezes. Her pension contribution will have risen from 7% to 9% so she'll actually be worse off. Factor in inflation and her real wage will be about the equivalent to about £20k in 2008 money.

Still she can always join her ex-colleagues in management consultancy and waste another scientific brain in peddling ******** to idiots.

Look, if she had chosen a profession that valued the economy like a banker or estate agent then she would be rewarded with a more appropriate salary. Why does the UK need scientists when everyone can sell houses to each other for ever increasing amounts.

[tufty]

In the days of the Empire you had to purchase high ranks. Anything officer and above cost a lot of money. You could never rise to be a captain.

You could not purchase rank in the navy, Engineers or the RA,

[The Knimbies who say No]

Of course, he had the advantage of inflation, or more exactly wage inflation. Nominal wage inflation if extremely handy for governments needing extra (nominal) tax revenue and workers with mortgages.

As a government, you know that if wages are rising 10% a year, then income tax revenues will also rise (indeed, disproportionately rise), so as chancellor you don't have to do much more than keep spending rises under inflation for a few years to balance the books.

Of course, at the moment we have wage deflation.. and every step the government takes is making it worse. So - as can be seen - it's virtually impossible to balance the books because you have the very hard job of cutting spending in nominal terms at the same time as tax revenues are dropping, and the two feed of of each other.

Overall taxes have risen in nominal terms every year this parliament, and are projected to keep doing so. Spending is forecast to rise by less, hence the (projected) narrowing deficit through this parliamentary session.

Total tax reciepts £Bn, nominal:

2010-11 522.4

2011-12 542.9

2012-13 550.6

2013-14 573.5

2014-15 597.1

2015-16 624.3

2016-17 657.2

2017-18 689.1

There's no disappearing billions, a point which has been made countless times. Government is trying to limit spending increases, rather than make any cuts, in the hope that the kid grows to fit the spending jumper he's been given. It's a very dangerous policy imo, as it leaves scant leeway for slippage in receipts or overspend, two classic nailed on certainties in Govt financial projections vs. reality, as we are all finding out to our cost- £5Bn of year 2068 dated debt sold this week for example.

Politics is about deciding at what level spending should be at, and what means are employed to get it. My preference is for lower spending, and lower taxes, but if a credible, sustainable plan to balance the books at current spending levels is forthcoming, I'm all ears. I've yet to hear anyone near the levers of power talk about one though.

At some point, the chickens will come home to roost.

Edited June 27, 2013 by cheeznbreed

[@contradevian]

Healey did more in a single year.

Admittedly the IMF banksters were holding a gun to Healey's head at the time.

[easy2012]

Proper public sector (part of the Medical Research Council).

There are lots of advantages, very secure job, decent pension, ability to do interesting work etc etc. And they get 100's of applications for every job so it isn't like the wages aren't enough to attract workers.

However it annoys me that it gets paid significantly less than central government civil servants. A friend of mine earns almost double her salary as a relatively lowly project management role in the home office.

Impressively, the MRC pay freeze pains are keenly felt by the top management as well at the MRC.

I am afraid this is one of the extended public sector / Quango and as you have correctly stated, project managers at the home office is doing just fine.

Look at MRC annual report: http://www.mrc.ac.uk/consumption/groups/public/documents/content/mrc008776.pdf

Page 116, income statement - it has mixed income sources and is more like those Welcome Trust etc funded research organisation as opposed to home office that gets all their cash from the treasury.

[easy2012]

There's no disappearing billions, a point which has been made countless times. Government is trying to limit spending increases, rather than make any cuts , in the hope that the kid grows to fit the spending jumper he's been given. It's a very dangerous policy imo, as it leaves scant leeway for slippage in receipts or overspend, two classic nailed on certainties in Govt financial projections vs. reality, as we are all finding out to our cost- £5Bn of year 2068 dated debt sold this week for example.

Politics is about deciding at what level spending should be at, and what means are employed to get it. My preference is for lower spending, and lower taxes, but if a credible, sustainable plan to balance the books at current spending levels is forthcoming, I'm all ears. I've yet to hear anyone near the levers of power talk about one though.

At some point, the chickens will come home to roost.

And yet the shameless keep shouting 'austerity'...

[zugzwang]

Overall taxes have risen in nominal terms every year this parliament, and are projected to keep doing so. Spending is forecast to rise by less, hence the (projected) narrowing deficit through this parliamentary session.

Total tax reciepts £Bn, nominal:

2010-11 522.4

2011-12 542.9

2012-13 550.6

2013-14 573.5

2014-15 597.1

2015-16 624.3

2016-17 657.2

2017-18 689.1

There's no disappearing billions, a point which has been made countless times. Government is trying to limit spending increases, rather than make any cuts, in the hope that the kid grows to fit the spending jumper he's been given. It's a very dangerous policy imo, as it leaves scant leeway for slippage in receipts or overspend, two classic nailed on certainties in Govt financial projections vs. reality, as we are all finding out to our cost- £5Bn of year 2068 dated debt sold this week for example.

Politics is about deciding at what level spending should be at, and what means are employed to get it. My preference is for lower spending, and lower taxes, but if a credible, sustainable plan to balance the books at current spending levels is forthcoming, I'm all ears. I've yet to hear anyone near the levers of power talk about one though.

At some point, the chickens will come home to roost.

And today Osborne is telling us that though he'd rather not raise taxes again he can't rule it out i.e. after the GE it's a racing cert, since there's no other way to balance the books.

Very dangerous waters.

[moneyfornothing]

And today Osborne is telling us that though he'd rather not raise taxes again he can't rule it out i.e. after the GE it's a racing cert, since there's no other way to balance the books.

Very dangerous waters.

Vote Labour .... We need a crash ... This charade is too painful..

[The Knimbies who say No]

And today Osborne is telling us that though he'd rather not raise taxes again he can't rule it out i.e. after the GE it's a racing cert, since there's no other way to balance the books.

Very dangerous waters.

Indeed. £300/month/household to plug the £120Bn hole we have currently, and that neglects the rollover of maturing gilts FreeTrader highlighted a few days ago. Just try it, George!

[durhamborn]

Of course, he had the advantage of inflation, or more exactly wage inflation. Nominal wage inflation if extremely handy for governments needing extra (nominal) tax revenue and workers with mortgages.

As a government, you know that if wages are rising 10% a year, then income tax revenues will also rise (indeed, disproportionately rise), so as chancellor you don't have to do much more than keep spending rises under inflation for a few years to balance the books.

Of course, at the moment we have wage deflation.. and every step the government takes is making it worse. So - as can be seen - it's virtually impossible to balance the books because you have the very hard job of cutting spending in nominal terms at the same time as tax revenues are dropping, and the two feed of of each other.

This is what they have got so very wrong.It also changes behaviour.When wages start falling compared to say food and energy people change their habits.More people shop at Aldi,more grow their own.Home cook etc.People use the car less.

Wages falling in real terms destroys government income.Also because of the way Brown set up tax credits as wages fall the tax credit bill goes up.

Of course its lost on people that they are seeing none of their productivity gains in real increases in pay.For decades wages would rise by RPI+1%ish.

I cant see how this can end without interest rates shooting up on government debt unless wages start to rise quickly above inflation.

[RDW]

What ever the cuts were, they weren't enough.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-23060273

Child actors in Weston-super-Mare could face prosecution if they dance in their break, a theatre company has been told.

Loganwest, which runs a summer school for nine to 21 year olds, is putting on the musical Grease at the Playhouse.

Producer Emma Smith said: "They've told us that if the children dance on their lunch break then both the children and our chaperones could face prosecution."

A council spokeswoman said it had to ensure "children taking part in public performances are correctly cared for".

Loganwest Productions has been running "intensive" two-week workshops for children across Bristol, Bath and Somerset since 2000.

Now, according to Ms Smith, North Somerset Council is stipulating that under 16s can only rehearse for five hours a day and must take a 90-minute lunch break.

Words escape me ....

[goldbug9999]

Of course, he had the advantage of inflation, or more exactly wage inflation. Nominal wage inflation if extremely handy for governments needing extra (nominal) tax revenue and workers with mortgages.

As a government, you know that if wages are rising 10% a year, then income tax revenues will also rise (indeed, disproportionately rise), so as chancellor you don't have to do much more than keep spending rises under inflation for a few years to balance the books.

Of course, at the moment we have wage deflation.. and every step the government takes is making it worse. So - as can be seen - it's virtually impossible to balance the books because you have the very hard job of cutting spending in nominal terms at the same time as tax revenues are dropping, and the two feed of of each other.

Tax "revenues" on public sector wages are not really revenues at all since its money you gave them in the first place. It would be much simpler and more cost effective to to have net-only salaries for public sector jobs, and make tax receipts figure more meaningful. It would also improved the treasuries cash flow.

[White Craw]

Tax "revenues" on public sector wages are not really revenues at all since its money you gave them in the first place. It would be much simpler and more cost effective to to have net-only salaries for public sector jobs, and make tax receipts figure more meaningful. It would also improved the treasuries cash flow.

These "net-only salaries", would they change subject to alterations in, for instance, income tax rates and allowances?

[Ash4781]

And today Osborne is telling us that though he'd rather not raise taxes again he can't rule it out i.e. after the GE it's a racing cert, since there's no other way to balance the books.

Very dangerous waters.

Raising taxes will kill the recovery (which is always just around the corner). I suppose the bigger picture is the decline in living standards.

[crash2006]

minus this.

Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's new home in Kensington Palace has cost the taxpayer £1 million/

They should have paid it themselves.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/10145982/Duke-and-Duchess-of-Cambridges-refurbishments-cost-taxpayer-1m.html

Edited June 27, 2013 by crash2006

[aa3.1]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/3073680/Admirals-outnumber-warships-in-Royal-Navy-report-shows.html

We have one spare admiral in case another falls over-board.

It is the crazy world Labour and friends like the Tories have created.. where everyone is a very important person with a prestigious title. It is like a friend of mine's sister is a 'vice president at HSBC'.. at first I said no way that is incredible. Then I found out they have dozens of vice presidents just in one city. She sells mutual funds, and is very successful at selling them in fairness to her.

[aa3.1]

And today Osborne is telling us that though he'd rather not raise taxes again he can't rule it out i.e. after the GE it's a racing cert, since there's no other way to balance the books.

Very dangerous waters.

I remember when Gordon Brown increased the top marginal rate from 45% to 50%. But it was a head smacking moment for Labour when they realized that 90% of the people in Britain in that bracket, work for the government. Everyone from senior change agents, to productivity consultants, to regional directors of communications strategy were hit.

[Reck B]

Was talking to my brother in law last night who works for the US Dept of Defense.

He has just started Furloughs which means he has been forced to take Fridays off each week, unpaid until September. Effectively a temporary 20% paycut..

Quite drastic action by the US gov to sort their budget out, this got me thinking about our situation here in the UK - can you imagine the shitstorm this would create in our public sector if such a plan was implemented here?

[White Craw]

Was talking to my brother in law last night who works for the US Dept of Defense.

He has just started Furloughs which means he has been forced to take Fridays off each week, unpaid until September. Effectively a temporary 20% paycut..

Quite drastic action by the US gov to sort their budget out, this got me thinking about our situation here in the UK - can you imagine the shitstorm this would create in our public sector if such a plan was implemented here?

If you were on TCs

or paying higher rate tax

maybe near the CB cutoff

or paying for a lot of petrol to get to work

wouldn't be anything like a 20% take home cut

maybe no cut at all

and an extra day off per week...

[PopGun]

If you were on TCs

or paying higher rate tax

maybe near the CB cutoff

or paying for a lot of petrol to get to work

wouldn't be anything like a 20% take home cut

maybe no cut at all

and an extra day off per week...

Indeed, if offered I reckon there would be a sizable take up.