© institute for fiscal studies disease and cure in the uk: the fiscal impact of the crisis and the...

© Institute for Fiscal Studies

Disease and cure in the UK: The fiscal impact of the crisis and the policy response

Slides prepared by Carl Emmerson for SOLACE

November 2010

http://www.ifs.org.uk/projects/346

Conclusions

• Permanent hit to public finances from financial crisis estimated at £86 billion a year (in today’s terms)

• Response is a £98 billion fiscal tightening by 2015–16, comprising a £24 billion tax rise and a £74 billion spending cut (in today’s terms)– OBR estimates 60% chance of hitting fiscal mandate on current policies

• Overall post crisis tax and benefit reforms regressive across most of the income distribution, although very focussed on richest 2%– cuts to welfare payments for working-age individuals

• Four years from next April will be the tightest sustained squeeze to public service spending since April 1976 to March 1980– total DELs cut by 11% in real terms

– overseas aid budget increased sharply

– in England: NHS and schools relatively protected; largest cuts to: Communities and Local Government, DEFRA and BIS

• Would be sensible to review plans in 2012


Disease

• Outlook for the public finances dramatically weakened since Budget 2008

• Much of deterioration expected to be impervious to economic recovery– ‘structural’ rather than ‘cyclical’ increase in borrowing

• Forecasting borrowing difficult– estimates of the size of the structural hole have changed over time

– latest (June 2010) forecasts are slightly worse than the forecast made before the general election (March 2010)



2008

–09

2009

–10

2010

–11

2011

–12

2012

–13

2013

–14

2014

–15

2015

–16

2016

–17

2017

–18

0

2

4

6

8

10

12Extra cyclicalExtra structuralBudget 2008

Per

cent

age

of n

atio

nal i

ncom

e

Permanent

damage =

5.8% of GDP

(£86bn)

Note: Author’s calculations comparing HM Treasury June 2010 Budget with HM Treasury March 2010 Budget.

Disease: size of the problem


Disease: change over time

PBR 2008 Budget 2009 PBR 2009 Budget March 2010

Budget June 2010

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8£47bn £94bn £86bn £78bn £86bn

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

na

tion

al i

nco

me

Sources: HM Treasury; IFS calculations.

Cure

• Labour (March 2010 Budget)– no fiscal tightening in 2010–11 (although economy would have to deal with

the removal of the fiscal stimulus that was in place in 2009–10)

– six year fiscal consolidation starting in April 2011

– composition of cure in 2014–15: 70% spending cuts, 30% tax rises

– no detail of additional measures for 2015–16 and 2016–17

• New Government– fiscal tightening to start this year

– aim to fill the hole in 2014–15, further tightening in 2015–16 to build some caution into the plans

– overall package in 2014–15: 73% spending cuts and 27% tax rises



Fiscal tightening: Labour’s plans

20

08

–0

9

20

09

–1

0

20

10

–1

1

20

11

–1

2

20

12

–1

3

20

13

–1

4

20

14

–1

5

20

15

–1

6

20

16

–1

7-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8UnknownTax increasesOther spending cutsInvestment cutsBenefit cuts

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

na

tion

al i

nco

me


70%

30%


Fiscal tightening: additional measures

20

08

–0

9

20

09

–1

0

20

10

–1

1

20

11

–1

2

20

12

–1

3

20

13

–1

4

20

14

–1

5

20

15

–1

6

20

16

–1

7-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8Additional tax increases

Additional spending cuts

Tax increases

Other spending cuts

Investment cuts

Benefit cuts

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

na

tion

al i

nco

me


22%

78%


Fiscal tightening: coalition plan

20

08

–0

9

20

09

–1

0

20

10

–1

1

20

11

–1

2

20

12

–1

3

20

13

–1

4

20

14

–1

5

20

15

–1

6

20

16

–1

7-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Tax increasesOther spending cutsInvestment cutsBenefit cuts

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

na

tion

al i

nco

me


27%

73%

Differences in cure (2014–15)

• Overall tightening: new Government to tighten by more

• Composition of tightening– mix between tax and spending very similar to March 2010 Budget plan

– sharper fall in borrowing leads to greater reduction in debt interest spending

– similar £bn cut to investment spending (both very deep)

– significant welfare cuts announced since election (not known whether Labour would have done this)

– bigger £bn tax rises, and deeper £bn cut to non-investment spending, than implied by the March 2010 Budget plan


Composition of the tightening in 2014–15


£ billion (nominal) March 2010 Budget

October 2010 Spending Review

Tax 21.5 29.8Spending 50.9 80.5

Investment spending 17.2 17.0Current spending 33.7 63.5Of which:

Debt interest 7 10Benefits –0.3 17.7Public services 27.0 35.7

Total tightening (£bn) 72.4 110.3% Spending 70 73% Tax 30 27

Latest forecasts

• Measures forecast to offset increase in underlying borrowing seen Budget 2008– deficit to return to pre-crisis levels in 2015–16

• Measures also to return debt to a sustainable path– but constant borrowing beyond 2015–16 would see not debt return to pre-

crisis levels until late 2020s

– if no further tax rises / spending cuts to offset costs of ageing population then debt still sustainable, but may not return to below 40% of national income

• Significant uncertainty remains– if latest forecasts are as accurate as previous ones then 60% chance of

meeting the Government’s fiscal mandate on current policies

– 40% chance that further tax rises or deeper spending cuts required


Cure: borrowing back to pre-crisis levels


20

07

–0

8

20

08

–0

9

20

09

–1

0

20

10

–1

1

20

11

–1

2

20

12

–1

3

20

13

–1

4

20

14

–1

5

20

15

–1

6

20

16

–1

7

20

17

–1

8

0

2

4

6

8

10

12 Budget 2008Budget June 2010 – no policy changeBudget June 2010

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

na

tion

al i

nco

me

Sources: Author’s calculations using all Budgets and Pre-Budget Reports since March 2008 (all available at http://www.hm-

treasury.gov.uk/).

Cure: debt sustainable but not back to pre-crisis levels for a generation


19

74

–7

5

19

77

–7

8

19

80

–8

1

19

83

–8

4

19

86

–8

7

19

89

–9

0

19

92

–9

3

19

95

–9

6

19

98

–9

9

20

01

–0

2

20

04

–0

5

20

07

–0

8

20

10

–1

1

20

13

–1

4

20

16

–1

7

20

19

–2

0

20

22

–2

3

20

25

–2

6

20

28

–2

9

20

31

–3

2

20

34

–3

5

20

37

–3

8

20

40

–4

1

0

40

80

120

160

200

Budget 2008

Budget June 2010 – no policy action

Budget June 2010

Budget June 2010 – including impact of demographic pressures

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

na

tion

al i

nco

me

Source: Author’s calculations based on the March 2008 and June 2010 Budget.

Meeting the fiscal mandate?


09–10 10–11 11–12 12–13 13–14 14–15 15–16-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

na

tion

al i

nco

me

60% chance of a surplus on the structural current budget under current policies

Source: Office for Budget Responsibility (

http://budgetresponsibility.independent.gov.uk/d/fan_charts_intervals.xls).

60% chance

of surplus

in 2015–16

http://budgetresponsibility.independent.gov.uk/d/fan_charts_intervals.xls

Tax & spend

• Crisis depressed tax revenues and increased public spending as a share of national income– tax revenues: lower financial sector profits, lower house and equity prices

– public spending: public service spending set in cash terms for three years in 2007 and economy turned out much smaller than expected

• As a share of national income increase in spending greater than the fall in revenues– provides possible rationale for more of the policy response being on

spending than on tax

– aim to return spending to slightly below, and revenues to slightly above, pre-crisis levels


Cure: impact on tax and spending


19

97

–9

8

19

98

–9

9

19

99

–2

00

0

20

00

–0

1

20

01

–0

2

20

02

–0

3

20

03

–0

4

20

04

–0

5

20

05

–0

6

20

06

–0

7

20

07

–0

8

20

08

–0

9

20

09

–1

0

20

10

–1

1

20

11

–1

2

20

12

–1

3

20

13

–1

4

20

14

–1

5

20

15

–1

6

30

35

40

45

50

55Spending – no policy change

Revenues – no policy change

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

na

tion

al i

nco

me

Impact of tax rises and welfare cuts

• Measures reduce net incomes across the income distribution

• Impact regressive across most of the income distribution– with notable exception of the richest the losses are larger among low income

groups than among higher income groups

• Throughout the income distribution pensioners lose, on average, less than families with children


Cure: all in this together?


Impact of tax & benefit reforms to be in place by 2014–15, by income

Poorest

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Richest

-£4,000

-£3,500

-£3,000

-£2,500

-£2,000

-£1,500

-£1,000

-£500

£0

-8%

-7%

-6%

-5%

-4%

-3%

-2%

-1%

0%

October 2010 Spending ReviewJune 2010 BudgetAnnounced by previous governmentTotal as a % of income (right axis)

Income decile group

Ch

an

ge

in n

et

inco

me

Cure: all in this together?


Impact of tax & benefit reforms to be in place by 2014–15, by family type

Poorest

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Richest

-8%

-7%

-6%

-5%

-4%

-3%

-2%

-1%

0%

Families with childrenPensionersOthers

Income decile group

Ch

an

ge

in n

et

inco

me

Impact of cuts to spending on public services

• Total spending on public services to be cut in real terms for six years– since WW2 cuts have only been achieved for two consecutive years

– deepest sustained cuts since April 1975 to March 1980

• Central government spending on public services (DELs)– to be cut as a share of national income back to the late 1990s levels

– in real terms spending in 2014–15 to be 11.2% lower than in 2010–11 or 13% below the level Labour planned for 2010–11


Cure: public service spending set for a squeeze


19

50

–5

1

19

55

–5

6

19

60

–6

1

19

65

–6

6

19

70

–7

1

19

75

–7

6

19

80

–8

1

19

85

–8

6

19

90

–9

1

19

95

–9

6

20

00

–0

1

20

05

–0

6

20

10

–1

1

20

15

–1

6

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

Labour ConLib Historic 6 year moving average

An

nu

al p

erc

en

tag

e r

ea

l in

cre

ase

Note: Figure shows total public spending less spending on welfare benefits and debt

interest.

DELs: The grand old Duke of York?


19

98

–9

9

19

99

–2

00

0

20

00

–0

1

20

01

–0

2

20

02

–0

3

20

03

–0

4

20

04

–0

5

20

05

–0

6

20

06

–0

7

20

07

–0

8

20

08

–0

9

20

09

–1

0

20

10

–1

1

20

11

–1

2

20

12

–1

3

20

13

–1

4

20

14

–1

5

10

15

20

25

30October 2010 Spending Review

March 2010 Budget

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

na

tion

al i

nco

me

Note: Figure shows Departmental Expenditure Limits (DELs) as a share of national income under current policies.

DELs: deep cuts coming


2010–11 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14 2014–1580

85

90

95

100

105March 2010 Budget

October 2010 Spending Review

Ind

ex:

La

bo

ur

20

10

–1

1 =

10

0

–11%

–10%

– 13%

Sharing the pain

• Two winners?– spending on international aid and energy & climate change

• Relative protection for NHS and schools?– tightest settlement for NHS spending since early 1950s

– schools spending per pupil to fall in all but most deprived schools

• Several losers?– Home office, Justice, Local Government and Department for Business,

Innovation and Skills all face cuts of around one-quarter

– latter primarily comes from deep cuts to taxpayer support for higher education teaching

• One big loser?– DCLG communities budget to be cut by two-thirds, with capital budgets cut

by three-quarters: public investment in new social housing the big loser


‘Winners’

Average DEL cut

Education

Defence

NHS (England)

Work and pensions

Energy and climate change

International development

-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40

-11.2

-10.8

-7.3

0.3

1.4

16.2

34.2

Real budget increase 2011–12 to 2014–15


Note: Figures show real change in total (resource + capital) DEL

‘Losers’

CLG Communities

Environment, food and rural affairs

Business, innovation and skills

CLG Local government

Justice

Home office

Culture, media and sport

Transport

Average DEL cut

-80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0

-67.6

-30.9

-28.5

-26.8

-25.3

-25.2

-21.1

-14.6

-11.2

Real budget increase 2011–12 to 2014–15


Note: Figures show real change in total (resource + capital) DEL


English schools spending

• DfE to receive total real-terms cut in DEL of 10.8%

• Schools spending including pupil premium to grow by 0.1% per year in real-terms (or 0.4% in total)– but total pupil numbers to increase by average of 0.7% per year

– total schools spending per pupil to be cut in real-terms by 0.6% per year (total of 2¼%)

• Assuming flat-rate pupil premium of £2,400 (stated total cost £2.5 billion) and underlying funding per pupil frozen in cash-terms– 60% of primary school pupils in schools where real funding falls

– 87% of secondary school pupils in schools where real funding falls

– 43% of pupils in (less deprived) schools would see cuts of 5% or more

– 1 in 8 pupils in (very deprived) schools would see increase of 5% or more

Note: Assumes all schools experience the same growth in pupil numbers.

Record breakers?

• Real increase over next 4 years– total spending: tightest since World War II

– spending on public services: tightest since April 1975 to March 1980

– NHS: tightest since April 1951 to March 1956

– (ODA: greatest since Jan 2002 to Dec 2006)


Conclusions

• Permanent hit to public finances from financial crisis estimated at £86 billion a year (in today’s terms)

• Response is a £98 billion fiscal tightening by 2015–16, comprising a £24 billion tax rise and a £74 billion spending cut (in today’s terms)– OBR estimates 60% chance of hitting fiscal mandate on current policies

• Overall post crisis tax and benefit reforms regressive across most of the income distribution, although very focussed on richest 2%– cuts to welfare payments for working-age individuals

• Four years from next April will be the tightest sustained squeeze to public service spending since April 1976 to March 1980– total DELs cut by 11% in real terms

– overseas aid budget increased sharply

– in England: NHS and schools relatively protected; largest cuts to: Communities and Local Government, DEFRA and BIS

• Would be sensible to review plans in 2012



Disease and cure in the UK: The fiscal impact of the crisis and the policy response

Slides prepared by Carl Emmerson for SOLACE

November 2010

http://www.ifs.org.uk/projects/346

© institute for fiscal studies disease and cure in the uk: the fiscal impact of the crisis and the...

Documents

fiscal studies disease

fiscal mandate

fiscal impact

fiscal stimulus

year fiscal consolidation

overall tightening

spending cuts

problem slide