ICAEW chart of the week: Post-GE2019 fiscal deficits

With the General Election now complete, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) was able to release a restated version of its March 2019 fiscal forecasts this morning, reflecting technical revisions to the way the fiscal numbers are calculated, in particular that of student loans. This enables us to update the numbers set out our GE2019 Fiscal Insight on the party manifestos as best we can, given that the OBR has not deigned to include either the changes to public spending announced in the Spending Round 2019 nor the tax and spending changes in the Conservatives manifesto.

As illustrated by the #icaewchartoftheweek, the revised baseline forecast for the fiscal deficit is now £50bn for the current fiscal year, followed by £59bn next year in 2020-21, £58bn in 2021-22 and 2022-23 and £60bn in 2023-24.

It was frustrating that the OBR scheduled their publication of these revised numbers for the first day of the General Election purdah period making it vulnerable – as happened – to being pulled. A day earlier and that would not have happened! Ideally, these revisions would have been published as soon as practical after the publication by the ONS of their revisions to historical numbers in September.

It would have been even better if the OBR had been able to update their economic forecast too, given that the current baseline is still based on an economic and fiscal analysis from nine-months ago. With weak economic growth over the first half of the financial year, it is likely that the OBR will cut its forecasts for tax revenues over the forecast period when it does get round to updating them, resulting in higher deficits – even before taking account of suggestions that the Conservative GE2019 winners plan to announce a splurge of more capital expenditures in the Spring Budget in February.

Unfortunately, we won’t see an updated long-term forecast until at least July 2020, when the OBR is scheduled to publish its next fiscal sustainability report on the prospects for the public finances.

ICAEW chart of the week: General Election 2019

With voters in the UK going to the polls tomorrow, the #icaewchartoftheweek is on the political party’s plans for the public finances.

All the political parties are promising to increase taxes, public spending and investment, with the plan to eliminate the fiscal deficit now well and truly abandoned.

The Conservatives are promising the least in terms of additional spending and investment, with £3bn a year extra spending in 2023-24, £8bn in extra capital investment and tax rises broadly offsetting tax cuts. However, this is unlikely to be the final result as they have deferred significant financial decisions, such as the funding of adult social care, until after the election.

Labour is planning to spending much more with £83bn a year more spending by 2023-24, funded by £78bn tax increases and £5bn from higher economic growth. They plan capital investment of £55bn a year and £58bn in total over five years to compensate ‘WASPI’ women. This is pretty ambitious, leading the IFS and others to cast doubt on the achievability of their plans, while these numbers don’t include the additional borrowing from their plans to nationalise utilities, nor the borrowing of those businesses post-nationalisation.

The Lib Dem plans are also very ambitious, with £50bn extra a year public spending by 2024-25 funded by £37bn in higher taxes and £14bn in higher economic growth from cancelling Brexit. They plan to borrow an extra £25bn a year to fund new capital investment.

The Greens’ are planning to be even more ambitious, including completely reforming welfare provision with the introduction of a universal basic income, contributing to a £124bn increase in taxes and public spending (albeit some of this is a switch from tax deductions to cash payments). Their capital investment plans are the largest and likely to most difficult to deliver of all the major parties at £82bn a year on average over 10 years.

Unfortunately, none of the major political parties appear to have a fiscal strategy that extends beyond the next five years, with only limited measures to address the big financial challenges of more people living longer. This is disappointing given that relatively small actions taken now could make a big difference to the financial position of the nation in 25 years’ time.

ICAEW’s full analysis of the party manifestos can be found at icaew.com/ge2019manifestoanalysis.

You can be part of the conversation as part of ICAEW’s GE 2019: It’s More Than a Vote campaign.

ICAEW Fiscal Insight: General Election 2019

On 12 December 2019, voters have the opportunity to focus on the big challenges of sustainability, technology and the public finances as they elect a government for the next four and a half years.

ICAEW have published a Fiscal Insight on the General Election 2019 manifesto proposals of the Conservatives, the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party.

All the political parties are promising to increase taxes, public spending and investment. The Conservatives are promising the least, but they have deferred significant decisions. Other parties propose spending a lot more, with Labour planning to nationalise utilities. There are new fiscal rules, but questions about whether they would be adhered to.

This is in the context of public finances that are on a financially unsustainable path and – disappointingly – none of the parties set out a long-term fiscal strategy. There are significant risks around the achievability of all the party manifesto plans, with the projected deficit in 2023–24 of £62bn (Conservatives), £118bn (Labour), £76bn (Liberal Democrats) or £133bn (Greens).

Read the Fiscal Insight on the ICAEW website.

ICAEW chart of the week: Age profile of monthly public spending

Chart: £902 at age 0, £1,505 at 10, £889, £618, £639, £742, £761 at age 60, £1,761 at 70, £2,246, £3,296, £3,515 at age 100.

With the General Election in full swing, the #icaewchartoftheweek is on one of the principal drivers of public spending: age.

As data from the Office for Budget Responsibility illustrates, public spending on the young increases as the population is educated, but then falls back to a low of around £600 per month at around age 28, after which spending per person starts to increase gradually over working lives until retirement age. From that point on, not only is there a significant increase in welfare spending as the state pension kicks in, but the costs of health care, and then adult social care start to increase dramatically.

With the number of people in the UK aged 70 or more expected to increase by 58% over the next 25 years, total public spending will increase accordingly, especially with all political parties promising to protect and improve the state pension, health provision and adult social care.

The number of people under the age of 70 projected by the ONS to increase by only around 2% over that same period, or potentially even fall by around 7% if net inward migration is lower than expected, while further cuts in public services are apparently off the table with the ‘end of austerity’. The implication is that taxes will need to rise, that social provision in retirement will need to be cut, or for there to be a resumption in austerity policies (or a combination of all three).

This election, voters have the opportunity to focus on the big challenges of sustainability, technology and the public finances. To find out more, visit GE2019 – It’s More Than a Vote.

ICAEW chart of the week: Public sector capital expenditure

Chart: Capex (real-terms) £61.5bn (3.5% of GDP) in 2009-10, to £64.1bn in 2011-12, down to £49.2bn (2.6%) in 2013-14, up to £60.0bn (2.9%) in 2017-18.

With apologies for the delay because of being away, this week’s #ICAEWchartoftheweek is on public sector capital expenditure (capex), something that all the political parties in the #GE2019 have promised to increase – in some cases by very significant amounts!

As part of ICAEW’s It’s More Than A Vote campaign, ICAEW will be analysing the political party manifestos over the next few weeks, including the potential implications for the public finances.

One area that all the major parties appear to agree on is the need to increase investment in infrastructure and other assets, which is why we thought we would look at the last nine years of capital expenditure reported in the Whole of Government Accounts (WGA), prepared under International Financial Reporting Standards. This differs from public sector investment in the National Accounts, with the latter including capital grants and other transactions that do not result in the creation of publicly-owned fixed assets.

As the chart illustrates, capital expenditure in 2017-18 of £60.0bn was lower than the £64.1bn incurred in 2011-12 after adjusting for inflation and to include Network Rail, the government owned railway infrastructure company prior to 2014-15 when it was incorporated into the WGA). As a proportion of the economy, capex in 2017-18 was 2.9% of GDP, a smaller ratio than the 3.5% calculated for 2011-12.

Only around £16bn (0.8% of GDP) of the amount spent in 2017-18 went into infrastructure assets (principally transport infrastructure such as roads and railways), with in the order of £24bn (1.2%) going into land & buildings, including hospitals and schools. Approximately £9bn (0.4%) was spent on military equipment, with the balance of £11bn (0.5%) invested in other public sector assets, ranging from tangible fixed assets such as plant & equipment, IT hardware, vehicles and furniture & fittings, as well as intangible fixed assets such as software.

Capex comprises a relatively small proportion of total expenditures (capital and non-capital) of £1.0tn reported in the WGA for 2017-18. As a consequence, even relatively small incremental amounts will constitute proportionately large increases in capital budgets in the next few years.

Whether these plans will be deliverable is another question, given that traditionally the government has struggled to spend all its capital budgets, not to mention the difficulties there will be in finding all the workers necessary for a major expansion in construction activity.

It’s More Than A Vote

ICAEW chart of the week: First half fiscal deficit

H1 2018-19 -£33.2bn fiscal deficit + £4.5bn growth + £1.8bn RBS dividends - £3.0bn lower revenues - £10.4bn higher spending = -£40.3bn fiscal deficit for H1 2019-20.

The ONS published the fiscal numbers for the first half of the UK Government’s 2019-20 financial year this morning, with the #icaewchartoftheweek illustrating the changes in comparison with the first half of last year.

If revenues had increased in line with economic growth then the deficit would have reduced by £4.5bn (net of the effect of inflation on both revenues and expenditures). Unfortunately, tax receipts have been relatively weak, coming in £3.0bn below growth, with higher national insurance and council tax receipts being more than offset by lower corporation tax, income tax, inheritance tax, fuel duties, excise duties, and stamp duty.

The Government’s preferred measure of the deficit (which excludes government-owned banks) did benefit from £1.8bn in dividends from the Royal Bank of Scotland.

Expenditures were £10.4bn higher than the first half of last year, reflecting more spending on public services (including the NHS), Brexit preparations, a growth in the size of the civil service, and a £3bn or so increase in capital investment.

This means that there is a shortfall of £40.3bn between receipts of £395.5bn and expenditures of £435.7bn in the first half of this financial year, compared with £33.2bn for the same period last time, when receipts were £384.2bn and expenditures totalled £417.4bn. (The first half deficit last year was originally reported as £19.9bn. This was subsequently revised down to £19.3bn before £13.9bn in accounting changes, including irrecoverable student loans.)

Fortunately for the Chancellor, the deficit tends to be much lower in the second half of the year given the boost from self-assessment tax declarations in January. Despite this the deficit could exceed £50bn this year if trends continue, a big disappointment for those who had hoped to continue on the path to eliminating the deficit.

With warning signs over the economy flashing, these numbers do not provide an auspicious backdrop for the Budget on Wednesday 6 November when the Chancellor is hoping to announce a number of major tax cuts.

For further information go to:

ONS – Public sector finances, September 2019

OBR – Commentary on the Public Sector Finances: September 2019.

ICAEW chart of the week: Welsh Government Budget

Chart: Welsh Government Budget 2019-20. Funding £20.6bn, Spending £20.6bn

This week’s #icaewchartoftheweek is on the subject of the Welsh Government’s Budget for the current financial year.

Officially a £19.4bn Budget to cover £16.3bn in Resource spending and £3.1bn in Capital investment, there is a further £1.2bn of spending funded by EU grants and other income to make a total of £20.6bn overall for 2019-20.

The largest element of funding comes from Whitehall in the form of a £13.7bn block grant, together with £1.3bn from the National Insurance Fund and £1.1bn in business rates. The block grant is lower than it used to be as the Welsh Government is now entitled to a £2.1bn share of income taxes and £0.3bn in other devolved taxes, which is supplemented by £0.2bn in borrowing and £0.7bn in other resources, before taking account of £0.7bn or so in grants from the EU and £0.5bn in other income.

The Welsh NHS takes the majority of the £8.6bn health and social care budget, with the balance supplementing local council budgets for social care, while grants of £5.5bn to local government, include the redistribution of the £1.1bn of business rates income.

The education budget of £2.7bn does not include the main schools’ funding streams (which in Wales is provided by local authorities), but it does include a substantial proportion of post-16 education funding, including £0.8bn in student loans, £0.4bn in student support grants and £0.4bn for further education.

Around half of the £1.4bn economy and transport budget is on capital investment in infrastructure, while the £0.8bn of spending by other departments comprises £0.6bn on environment, energy and rural affairs, and £0.2bn on international relations and the Welsh language. Central services and administration expenditure of £0.9bn includes £86m for the Welsh Assembly, Ombudsman and Audit Office, while the Welsh Government has £0.6bn in unallocated reserves that it can deploy if needed.

While the Chancellor has indicated that there will be more money in 2020-21, that is a still half a year away, and the use of the term ‘First Supplementary Budget’ could be an indication that the Welsh Government might be looking to submit a further budget request before the end of the financial year!

ICAEW chart of the week: fiscal changes

Chart: Fiscal methodology changes and error corrections. £23.6bn 2018-19 deficit before changes, £41.4bn changes after changes.

The public sector finances were subjected this week to some big methodology changes by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), as illustrated by the #icaewchartoftheweek.

At the same time, the ONS took the opportunity to fix some errors in the reported fiscal numbers, including a correction of £2.6bn in 2018-19 relating to double counting by HMRC within corporation tax revenues. This is an error that turns out to have been occurring for the last 7 years, raising questions over the quality of controls over fiscal reporting within government.

There were also a number of other revisions to the numbers amounting to £1.5bn, increasing the reported deficit for 2018-19 from £23.6bn to £27.7bn before methodology changes.

The treatment of student loans in the fiscal measures has been misleading for many years, and the ONS have finally dealt with the ‘fiscal illusion’ this created (as the OBR describes such flaws in the National Accounts).

The new treatment increases the deficit in 2018-19 by £12.4bn, with a charge of £8.6bn for loans that are never expected to be recovered (just under half of the total loans extended in the year), the removal of £2.3bn in interest on student loans also not expected to be collected, and £1.5bn from the loss experienced on the sale of part of the student loan portfolio during last year.

The treatment of pension funds has changed too, with a £1.3bn increase in the deficit relating to how the Pension Protection Fund and local authority and other public sector pension funds are recorded.

Overall, the fiscal deficit for 2018-19 has been increased to £41.4bn, a 75% increase in the headline number from that previously reported.

Not shown in the chart is the effect on public sector net debt. This was not affected by the student loans change, but was reduced at 31 March 2019 from £1,802bn to £1,773bn as a consequence of eliminating £29bn owed to local authority and other pension funds, without reflecting the associated liability to public sector employees. We disagree with this elimination, which we think understates the headline measure for the national debt.

Despite this, the overall effect of these changes is to improve the reporting of the public finances. A positive step forward, even if there remains a long way to go.

Further information:

– UK public sector finances, 24 September 2019 (ONS)

– Commentary on the public sector finances (OBR)

ICAEW Fiscal Insight: Spending Round 2019

Cover photo with link to a pdf - ICAEW Fiscal Insight on the Spending Round 2019: an end to austerity?

Fiscal Insight – Spending Round 2019

On 4 September 2019, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the UK Government’s plans for departmental spending in 2020-21 in the Spending Round 2019.

This ICAEW Fiscal Insight analyses the effect of this announcement on the public finances and what this means for public services. Headlines include:

Planned departmental spending of £434.2bn in 2020-21

Departmental current spending up by £13.8bn or 4.1% to £352.3bn
Departmental capital spending up by £3.9bn or 5.0% to £81.9bn
This is £13.4bn more than set out in the March 2019 Spring Statement

Increases in current spending

£4.1bn for health, including £3.9bn for NHS England
£2.2bn for education, including £1.8bn for schools and £400m for further education
£1.3bn for law & order, including £750m for more police
£1.0bn for social care, with the prospect of a further £0.5bn from council tax precepts

Increases in capital investment

£2.2bn for transport, including HS2, Network Rail and Highways England
£1.9bn for international development

Effect on the public finances

Total managed expenditure in 2020-21 of £878.6bn, 2.4% more than this year
With student loan accounting change deficit is £46.2bn or 2.0% of GDP
Economic forecasts not refreshed, updating them would likely increase the deficit further
The government is likely to breach its fiscal targets for 2020-21

An end to austerity?

All departments’ current budgets will increase by at least inflation
Welfare spending is still being cut
The Spending Round is for one year only

The Spending Round marks a turning point for spending on public services, with all departmental budgets increasing by inflation at the very least. This is a significant change after a decade of cuts in most department budgets.

Click here to read the ICAEW Fiscal Insight on the Spending Round 2019.

ICAEW chart of the week: a trillion dollar deficit

Chart: A trillion dollar deficit. Revenue $3.6tn, Spending $4.6tn.

The #ICAEWchartoftheweek this week is on the US federal government budget. This is forecast by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to end the current financial year this month at just under a trillion dollars in deficit, with the budget shortfall in the year ended 30 September 2020 projected to exceed a trillion dollars for the first time.

Revenue in 2020 is expected to amount to $3,620bn. The largest contributions are from federal income taxes of $1,800bn and payroll taxes of $1,281bn, followed by a modest $245bn from corporate taxes and $294bn in other revenues.

This is projected to be $1,008bn less than planned spending by the federal government in 2020 of $4,628bn. Social security is expected to cost $1,097bn, while spending on Medicare, Medicaid and other health programmes are expected to cost $1,163bn net of receipts. Income security (welfare) programmes are expected to cost $302bn, while the balance of mandatory expenditure includes spending on military veterans and federal civilian and military retirement plans.

Discretionary spending of $1,400bn comprises $737bn on defense and $663bn on everything else apart from interest. This includes elementary and secondary education, housing assistance, international affairs, and the administration of justice, as well as outlays for highways and other programmes. Net interest is expected to cost $390bn.

The shortfall in revenues compared with spending will be funded by borrowing, with federal external debt expected to increase from $16.7tn to $17.8tn at the end of September 2020.

Federal revenues and spending are estimated to amount to 16.4% and 21.0% of GDP respectively in 2020, with the deficit equivalent to 4.6% of GDP. The CBO projects that the average federal deficit between 2020 to 2029 will be 4.7% of GDP, significantly higher than the 2.9% average over the last fifty years, resulting in federal debt growing from 79% of GDP in 2019 to 95% of GDP over the coming decade.

Of course, the federal budget does not give the full picture for the public finances in the US, with most state governments choosing (or being legally required) to run budget surpluses.

As with many developed economies, the public finances in the US are under increasing pressure with an increasingly long-lived population driving higher costs for social security, health and social care. With lower levels of economic growth (albeit currently much higher than in the UK or Europe) and a growing level of debt, there are concerns about the resilience of the US public finances if there were to be an economic downturn or another financial crisis in the medium term.

As summer turns into fall, it may be that a turn in economic seasons is on the way too. After all, winter is coming.

The full Congressional Budget Office report is available on cbo.gov.