Facts and figures about UK taxes, benefits and public spending.
Income distribution, poverty and inequality.
Analysing government fiscal forecasts and tax and spending.
Analysis of the fiscal choices an independent Scotland would face.
Case studies that give a flavour of the areas where IFS research has an impact on society.
Reforming the tax system for the 21st century.
A peer-reviewed quarterly journal publishing articles by academics and practitioners.
|
Type: Observations Authors: Robert Chote
Alistair Darling admitted yesterday that the underlying health of the public finances is much weaker than he thought in last year's Pre-Budget Report, and that it will take two full parliaments of intensifying austerity to get government borrowing back to acceptable levels.
The Chancellor's forecast that the Government would need to borrow £175 billion this year - almost 12½ per cent of national income - had been well trailed in advance. Much more surprising was the Treasury's assessment that four-fifths of this borrowing will be 'structural' and therefore impervious to economic recovery - whenever it comes and however strong it is.
The Treasury has revised up its estimate of the structural budget deficit for 2010-11 from 7.2 per cent of national income in the PBR to 9.8 per cent in the Budget, increasing the size of the hole that the Treasury thinks needs to be filled by around £35 billion since the PBR. This reflects a number of factors. For example, the Treasury thinks that the economic crisis will punch a bigger hole in the productive potential of the economy. It also expects the level of prices in the economy to be lower over the long-term. It has also been hit by the growth of 'VAT debts'.
In response, the Chancellor announced cuts in capital spending plans, cuts in other government spending plans and increase in taxes that will each raise about £9 billion each by 2013-14, adding up to 1.6 per cent of national income. But this will still leave the government borrowing 3.2 per cent of national income more than it needs to invest in that year.
That means that whoever takes office in the general election after next will still have to find another £45 billion a year in today's money by the end of their parliament to eliminate this deficit, from tax increases and cuts in non-investment spending.
Search |
View all Observations in the series
Recent Observations
Cutting the deficit: three years down, five to go?
The UK is in the fourth year of a planned eight-year fiscal tightening. Following further announcements made in Budget 2013, this fiscal consolidation is now forecast to total £143 billion by 2017–18. The UK is intending the fourth largest fiscal consolidation among the 29 advanced economies for which comparable data are available. By the end of this financial year, half of the total consolidation is expected to have been implemented. However, within this tax increases and cuts to investment spending have been relatively front-loaded, while cuts to welfare spending and other non-investment spending have been relatively back-loaded.
Deficit unchanged
The March Budget forecast that borrowing would fall by £0.1 billion from £121.0 billion in 2011–12 to £120.9 billion in 2012–13. On Tuesday, the Office for National Statistics is due to release its first estimate of public sector net borrowing in March 2013 and, therefore, for the whole of 2012–13. Borrowing could easily end up being higher or lower than it was in the previous year, either due to backwards revisions, the uncertainty inherent in forecasting borrowing even a month in advance, or both. However, whether borrowing is slightly up or down in cash terms is economically irrelevant. Either way, the bigger picture is that having fallen by roughly a quarter between 2009–10 and 2011–12, borrowing is forecast to be broadly constant through to 2013–14.
Women working in their sixties: why have employment rates been rising?
Employment rates through the recession have been remarkably robust, with today’s ONS figures showing employment remaining close to 30 million. The young have experienced historically low employment rates and high unemployment rates but the employment rate of women aged 60 to 64 has increased as fast since 2010 as it did during the 2000s. An important explanation is the gradual increase in the state pension age for women since 2010, which has led to more older women being in paid work. Without this policy change, the employment rate for 60 to 64 year women would have been broadly flat since 2010.
|


