Public spending in smaller numbers
Discussion
I was sent this on the US debt, and I found it a surprisingly effective way to explain the numbers
Remove 8 zeros from the US national figures and show it as a household budget.
• Annual family income: $21,700
• Money the family spent: $38,200
• New debt on the credit card: $16,500
• Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
• Total budget cuts: $385
So I thought I'd have a look for the UK equivalents. Best I can see from the Treasury and the ONS as the UK equivalent for 2011 (taking off 7 zeros)
Family income: £54,800 (including £25,300 of income tax and NI)
Family spending: £64,800
Credit card balance at start of year: £90,900
Interest on the balance: £4,300
Total amount added to the credit card: £14,300
Total planned budget cuts: £5,000
So if you bump into a "cuts are evil" type protester as you're wandering around, show this to them and ask them what they would do instead.
EFA because it wasn't clear that the interest payments were included in the annual spend
Remove 8 zeros from the US national figures and show it as a household budget.
• Annual family income: $21,700
• Money the family spent: $38,200
• New debt on the credit card: $16,500
• Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
• Total budget cuts: $385
So I thought I'd have a look for the UK equivalents. Best I can see from the Treasury and the ONS as the UK equivalent for 2011 (taking off 7 zeros)
Family income: £54,800 (including £25,300 of income tax and NI)
Family spending: £64,800
Credit card balance at start of year: £90,900
Interest on the balance: £4,300
Total amount added to the credit card: £14,300
Total planned budget cuts: £5,000
So if you bump into a "cuts are evil" type protester as you're wandering around, show this to them and ask them what they would do instead.
EFA because it wasn't clear that the interest payments were included in the annual spend
Edited by Newc on Tuesday 13th September 12:26
I think they are slightly misleading.
The budget 'cuts' are just reductions in increases - but spending is still increasing.
The 'family' equivalent is that rather than cancelling sky movies and sports, the gym membership and giving up the two starbucks a day, the UK is just dropping sky movies, cancelling David Lloyd membership and joining Virgin active and going to Costa Coffee instead of Starbucks.
The budget 'cuts' are just reductions in increases - but spending is still increasing.
The 'family' equivalent is that rather than cancelling sky movies and sports, the gym membership and giving up the two starbucks a day, the UK is just dropping sky movies, cancelling David Lloyd membership and joining Virgin active and going to Costa Coffee instead of Starbucks.
Esseesse said:
I know they are, but it looks like the cuts this year are around a quarter of what the overspend would be. Which is more than I thought they were.
They have to be at that scale if they're to meet the stated objective of getting rid of the annual overspend completely by the end of this parliament.johnfm said:
I think they are slightly misleading.
The budget 'cuts' are just reductions in increases - but spending is still increasing.
The 'family' equivalent is that rather than cancelling sky movies and sports, the gym membership and giving up the two starbucks a day, the UK is just dropping sky movies, cancelling David Lloyd membership and joining Virgin active and going to Costa Coffee instead of Starbucks.
so whats the planned budget for next year (including the cuts)?The budget 'cuts' are just reductions in increases - but spending is still increasing.
The 'family' equivalent is that rather than cancelling sky movies and sports, the gym membership and giving up the two starbucks a day, the UK is just dropping sky movies, cancelling David Lloyd membership and joining Virgin active and going to Costa Coffee instead of Starbucks.
Esseesse said:
Whereas a reduction of $385 in $16,500 (or $16,885) seems far worse and a token pathetic effort.
Maybe if you look at it from another angle, and think that the US runs it's services quite efficiently (I was under the impression the US is alot more conservative than the UK) then cutting that much is an acheivement. Think of it as, it'd be easy to shave a large amount of weight off a VW golf, but you'd struggle to shave a small amount off a caterham 7. But then I don't really know how well the US government is run and all that. But I see what you mean, it doesn't look great.
maniac0796 said:
Esseesse said:
Whereas a reduction of $385 in $16,500 (or $16,885) seems far worse and a token pathetic effort.
Maybe if you look at it from another angle, and think that the US runs it's services quite efficiently (I was under the impression the US is alot more conservative than the UK) then cutting that much is an acheivement. Think of it as, it'd be easy to shave a large amount of weight off a VW golf, but you'd struggle to shave a small amount off a caterham 7. But then I don't really know how well the US government is run and all that. But I see what you mean, it doesn't look great.
mondeoman said:
johnfm said:
I think they are slightly misleading.
The budget 'cuts' are just reductions in increases - but spending is still increasing.
The 'family' equivalent is that rather than cancelling sky movies and sports, the gym membership and giving up the two starbucks a day, the UK is just dropping sky movies, cancelling David Lloyd membership and joining Virgin active and going to Costa Coffee instead of Starbucks.
so whats the planned budget for next year (including the cuts)?The budget 'cuts' are just reductions in increases - but spending is still increasing.
The 'family' equivalent is that rather than cancelling sky movies and sports, the gym membership and giving up the two starbucks a day, the UK is just dropping sky movies, cancelling David Lloyd membership and joining Virgin active and going to Costa Coffee instead of Starbucks.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff