Tag: #usa

ICAEW chart of the week: US proposed federal budget 2023

Our chart this week illustrates the $5.8tn federal budget for the 2023 fiscal year proposed by President Biden to Congress for approval – a process that will not be straightforward.

Chart illustrating the 2023 US federal budget proposal. Receipts $4.6tn + Deficit $1.2tn = Outlays $5.8tn. Receipts comprise social security $1.5tn, income taxes $2.3tn, corporate taxes $0.5tn and other $0.3tn. Outlays comprise welfare $3.7tn (social security $1.3tn, healthcare $1.4tn, veterans $0.2tn, income security $0.8tn), net interest of $0.4tn and federal government spending of $1.77tn (defence $0.8tn, non-defence $0.9tn).

The US Office for Management and Budget (OMB) has just published President Biden’s proposal for the Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2023, which commences on 1 October 2022.

Federal spending proposed of $5.8tn comprises $3.7bn of ‘mandatory’ spending, primarily on welfare programmes, $0.4tn on debt interest, and $1.7tn of ‘discretionary’ spending. Welfare spending includes $1.3tn on social security, $1.4tn on healthcare (Medicare and Medicaid), $0.2tn on support to veterans, and $0.8tn on income security and other programmes.

This is a $60bn reduction from the $5.9tn forecast for the current financial year ending on 30 September 2022, with increases in social security ($99bn), Medicare and Medicaid ($67bn), interest ($39bn) and defence ($29bn), offset by a reduction of $280bn in income security (primarily pandemic support) and $14bn in non-defence departmental spending. This compares with the $6.8trn spent in the fiscal year ended 30 September 2021 at the height of the pandemic.

Receipts are forecast at $4.6tn, comprising social security payroll taxes of $1.5tn, federal income taxes of $2.3tn, corporate taxes of $0.5tn, and other taxes $0.3tn, resulting in a deficit of $1.2tn to be funded by borrowing.

Receipts are forecast to be $201bn higher than the $4.4tn forecast for the current financial year, with social security receipts up $64bn, income taxes up $82bn and corporate taxes up $118bn, offset by a fall of $63bn in other receipts. This primarily relates to economic factors as the US emerges from the pandemic but, as has been publicly reported, also involves higher taxes on ‘billionaires’, among other tax measures.

With pandemic income security and furlough programmes no longer required, the deficit has fallen from $2.8tn in 2021 to $1.4tn in the current year and a proposed $1.2tn in the next, before increasing to $1.8tn in 2032, reflecting increases in both receipts and spending over the coming decade.

The budget documents prepared by the OMB focus in particular on the major plans to improve infrastructure embodied in the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 2021, as well as further investment in defence, in lowering health and social care costs for individuals, in improving housing, pre-school and college education, and in reducing energy costs by combating climate change. The OMB suggests that there is some prudence in the budget given the uncertainties about whether proposed tax rises will obtain political support from within Congress, with an indication that this will be used to reduce the federal deficit even further if all the proposed tax rises are enacted into law.

For President Biden, this is his last budget proposal before the mid-term elections in November, when there is a possibility that the Democrats might lose control of one, or even both, houses of Congress. This makes it particularly important to his ability to deliver his domestic agenda.

This chart was originally published by ICAEW.

ICAEW chart of the week: Government borrowing rates

Our first chart of 2022 highlights how the cost of government borrowing remains extremely low for most of the 21 largest economies in the world, despite the huge expansion in public debt driven by the pandemic.

Government 10-year bond yields: Germany -0.13%, Switzerland -0.07%, Netherlands 0.00%, Japan 0.09%, France 0.23%, Spain 0.60%, UK 1.08%, Italy 1.23%, Canada 1.59%, USA 1.65%, Australia 1.79%, South Korea 2.38%, China 2.82%, Poland 3.87%, Indonesia 6.38%, India 6.51%, Mexico 8.03%, Russia 8.38%, Brazil 10.73%, Turkey 24.21%.

Our chart of the week illustrates how borrowing costs are still at historically low rates for most of the 21 largest national economies in the world, with negative yields on 10-year government bonds on 5 January 2022 for Germany (-0.13%) and Switzerland (-0.07%), approximately zero for the Netherlands, and yields of sub-2.5% for Japan (0.09%), France (0.23%), Spain (0.60%), the UK (1.08%), Italy (1.23%), Canada (1.59%), the USA (1.65%), Australia (1.79%) and South Korea (2.38%).

This is despite the trillions added to public debt burdens across the world over the past couple of years as a consequence of the pandemic, including the $5trn added to US government debt since March 2020 (up from $17.6trn to $22.6trn owed to external parties) and the more than £500bn borrowed by the UK government (public sector net debt up from £1.8trn to £2.3trn) for example.

Yields in developing economies are higher, although China (2.82%) and Poland (3.87%) can borrow at much lower rates than Indonesia (6.38%), India (6.51%), Mexico (8.03%), Russia (8.37%) and Brazil (10.73%). The outlier is Turkey (24.21%), which is experiencing some difficult economic conditions at the moment. Data was not available for Saudi Arabia, the 19th or 20th largest economy in the world, which has net cash reserves.

With inflation higher than it has been for several years, real borrowing rates are negative for most developed countries, meaning that in theory it would make sense for most countries to continue to borrow as much as they can while funding is so cheap. However, in practice fiscal discipline appears to be reasserting itself, with Germany, for example, planning on returning to a fully balanced budget by the start of next year and the UK targeting a current budget surplus within three years.

For many policymakers, the concern is not so much about how easy it is to borrow today, but the prospect of higher interest rates multiplied by much higher levels of debt eating into spending budgets just as they are looking to invest to grow their economies over the rest of the decade. Despite that, with the pandemic still raging and an emerging cost of living crisis, there may well be a temptation to borrow ‘just one more time’ to support struggling households over what is likely to be a difficult start to 2022.

This chart was originally published by ICAEW.

ICAEW chart of the week: US Infrastructure & Jobs Act

My chart this week looks at the $550bn of incremental funding over five years allocated by the US Infrastructure & Jobs Act just passed by Congress.

Chart showing $550bn in incremental investment over five years, with $110bn allocated to roads & bridges, $66bn railroads, $65bn power grid, $65bn broadband, $63bn water, $47bn resilience, $39bn public transit, $25bn airports, $21bn environment, $17bn ports, $15bn electric vehicles and $11bn safety.

The $1.2tn US Infrastructure & Jobs Act authorises $550bn in incremental spending over five years on top of existing infrastructure investment planned by the federal government on highways, railroads, electricity networks, water, public transit, airports, and ports across the US. Passed by Congress with some bipartisan support it aims to renew the nation’s infrastructure and stimulate the economy as the US emerges from the pandemic.

The White House describes the Act as delivering “no more lead pipes, high-speed internet access, better roads and bridges, investments in public transit, upgraded airports and ports, investment in passenger rail, a network of electric vehicle chargers, an upgraded power infrastructure, resilient infrastructure, and investment in environmental remediation.”

The incremental spending can be broken down as follows:

  • $110bn for roads and bridges – rebuilding the crumbling highway network, transportation research, funding for Puerto Rico’s highways, and ‘congestion relief’ in American cities
  • $66bn for railroads – upgrades and maintenance of the passenger rail system, and freight rail safety
  • $65bn for the power grid – investment in power lines and cables, and in clean energy
  • $65bn for broadband – expanding broadband in rural areas and low-income communities, including $14bn to reduce internet bills for low-income citizens
  • $63bn for water infrastructure – including $15bn for lead pipe replacement, $10bn for chemical clean-up, and $8bn for water facilities in the western half of the country to address ongoing drought conditions.
  • $47bn for resilience – a Resilience Fund to protect infrastructure from cybersecurity attacks and address flooding, wildfires, coastal erosion, and droughts along with other extreme weather events
  • $39bn for public transit – upgrades to public transport systems nationwide, new bus routes, and public transport accessibility for seniors and disabled Americans
  • $25bn for airports – major upgrades and expansions at airports, including $5bn for air traffic control towers and systems
  • $21bn for the environment – to clean up polluted ‘superfund’ and other brownfield sites, abandoned mines, and old oil and gas wells
  • $17bn for ports – half to the Army Corps of Engineers for port infrastructure, with the balance to the Coast Guard, ferry terminals, and to reduce truck emissions at ports
  • $15bn for electric vehicles – including $7.5bn on electric vehicle charging points, $5bn for bus fleet replacement in low-income, rural, and tribal communities, and $2.5bn for zero- and low-emission ferries
  • $11bn for safety – mostly highway safety improvements, but also for pedestrian, pipeline, and other safety areas

The plan was for a combination of tax rises, economic returns on the investments made and savings from other areas (including unused pandemic-relief) to fully cover the cost of these investments, however, many of the proposed tax increases did not make it to final bill and the independent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that there is less unused pandemic-relief available than originally thought. The CBO estimates that the fiscal deficit will be $350bn higher over the next five years.

The Act is the economic infrastructure element of President Biden’s “Build Back Better Framework”, with the separate $1.75tn Build Back Better Bill covering social infrastructure (including more than a million homes for low-income families) and large amounts for social programmes. These include universal pre-school for three- and four-year olds, free community college, expanded healthcare through Medicare (for over 65s) and Medicaid (for low-income families), lower prescription drug costs, tax cuts for children and childcare support, and paid family leave. There is also some money for tax cuts for electric vehicles and other climate incentives, although more ambitious plans such as forcing utilities to phase in renewable energy are believed to be less likely to make it into the final legislation. The Build Back Better Bill does not have bipartisan support and so requires all 50 Democrats in the Senate and almost all the Democrats in the House of Representatives to agree if it is to pass.

Whether the other elements of the Build Back Better Framework come to fruition remains to be seen, but President Biden will definitely be pleased that he can chalk up this major legislative achievement.

This chart was originally published by ICAEW.

ICAEW chart of the week: G7 economies

Our chart this week illustrates how in representing more than half of the world economy, decisions taken by the G7 can have a significant impact on the entire planet.

The G7 summit hasn’t formally started yet, but Group of Seven (G7) ministers and their guests have already started to meet ahead of the main event next month, albeit subject to quarantine restrictions.

The #icaewchartoftheweek illustrates how important this gathering is by highlighting how the seven major democratic nations and the European Union that together comprise the G7 represent more than half the global economy – and even more than that, once four invited guest nations are included.

Circular 'sunburst' chart showing G7 nations (USA, Japan, Germany, UK, France, Italy and Canada plus remaining EU nations), G7 guest nations (India, South Korea, Australia and a spoke for South Africa) and the rest of the world (China, Russia and Brazil followed by all the rest).

Overall, the G7 economies are forecast by the IMF to generate £35.9tn of economic activity in 2021 at current prices, 54% of forecast global GDP of £66.8tn. This comprises the economies of seven individual member nations: the USA (£16.3tn), Japan (£3.8tn), Germany (£3.1tn), the UK (£2.2tn), France (£2.1tn), Italy (£1.5tn) and Canada (£1.3tn), together with the 24 other EU member states (£5.6tn).

The guests invited to the 47th G7 summit in Cornwall are expected to generate a further £4.9tn or 7% of global GDP in 2021, bringing the total economic activity represented at the summit to £40.8tn or 61% of the total. They are India (£2.2tn), South Korea (£1.3tn), Australia (£1.2tn) and South Africa (£0.2tn).

Not represented at the G7 are China (£12.2tn), Russia (£1.2tn) and Brazil (£1.1tn) and around 160 other nations across the globe (£11.5tn in total).

The G7 summit presents an opportunity for the 11 national leaders and 2 EU representatives involved to shape the direction for much of the world, with discussions expected to range from saving the planet through to transparency in financial and non-financial reporting.

This chart was originally published by ICAEW.

ICAEW chart of the week: The debt of G7 nations

This week’s chart looks at how the pandemic has driven government debt levels higher, a topic that will be on the agenda at the G7 summit in Cornwall in six weeks’ time.

2019 General Government Net / GDP plus forecast change over 2020 and 2021: Canada 23% + 14% = 37% Germany 41% +11% = 52% UK 75% + 22% = 97% France 89% + 17% = 106% USA 83% + 26% = 109% Italy 122% + 22% = 144% Japan 150% + 22% = 172%

The #icaewchartoftheweek is on the topic of government debt, looking at the indebtedness of the seven nations that comprise the G7 together with the EU. 

The strength (or otherwise) of public finances will underlie many of the discussions at the upcoming G7 summit in Cornwall in June as countries decide how best to deal with the coronavirus pandemic, achieving net-zero carbon and the COP26 goals, strengthening defence and security, and economic recovery. All of these are likely to require significant public investment at a time when public finances have been hit hard from a combination of the financial crisis just over a decade ago and the coronavirus pandemic over the past year.

Perhaps best-placed amongst the G7 are Canada and Germany, with stronger public balance sheets than their peers putting them in a better position to fund public investment. Canada’s general government net debt to GDP ratio (the net debts of the federal government, provincial governments and local authorities combined compared with Canadian GDP) is forecast to increase from 23% at 31 December 2019 to 37% at 31 December 2021, while Germany’s general government net debt to GDP ratio is forecast to increase from 41% to 52% over the same period.

The UK is next with its general government net debt up from 75% of GDP to a forecast 97% of GDP, followed by France with its net debt increasing from 89% in December 2019 to a forecast 106% of GDP for the end of 2021. The USA is expected to overtake France with its major stimulus packages seeing debt rise from 83% as a proportion of GDP to 109% by the end of this year. The biggest ratios within the G7 are Italy, which is expected to increase from 122% to 144%, while Japan is expected to rise from 150% to 172% of GDP.

Not shown on the chart are G7 guest nations this year: Australia (up from 26% to a forecast 49% of GDP) and South Korea (12% to 23%) are both in relatively strong public finance positions, while India (74% to 99%) is in a more challenging fiscal situation.

Despite the differences in debt levels, there will be a commonality amongst all the nations present in needing to find money to deal with increased pressure on public services and social security systems as populations age, for public investment in achieving net zero and in infrastructure more generally, to fund defence in an increasingly unstable global security environment and in economic stimulus to restart economies as they reopen, not to mention the need to replace tax income on fossil fuels as they are eliminated over the coming decades.

The signs are that tax reform will play a larger part in discussions than it may have done previously, with the USA’s suggestion for a minimum corporation tax indicative of a move to limit tax competition between nations and work more collaboratively to capture tax receipts from increasingly mobile global corporations and individuals.

Hence while many of the headlines from the G7 summit are likely to be focused on the heads of government talking about the global response to the coronavirus pandemic, the global security situation and global plans to deliver net zero, the side room containing finance ministers discussing global taxation and global public investment may be just as consequential. 

This chart was originally published by ICAEW.

ICAEW chart of the week: global military spending

19 March 2021: The UK’s Integrated Review is the inspiration for this week’s chart, illustrating the 20 countries around the world that spend the most on their militaries.

Chart showing global military spending in 2019 led by USA (£526bn) and China (£200bn) followed by 18 other countries - see text below the chart for details.

The UK Government launched its Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy on 16 March 2021, setting out a vision for the UK’s place in the world following its departure from the European Union and in the context of increasing international tensions and emerging security threats.

At the core of the Integrated Review is security and defence, and ICAEW’s chart of the week illustrates one aspect of that by looking at military spending around the world. 

The chart shows spending by the top 20 countries, which together comprise in the order of £1.2tn of estimated total military spending of around £1.4tn to £1.5tn globally in 2019 – an almost textbook example of the 80:20 rule in action.

More than a third of the total spend is incurred by just one country – the USA – which spent in the order of £526bn in 2019 converted at current exchange rates. The next biggest were China and India at £200bn and £50bn respectively, although differences in purchasing power mean that they can afford many more soldiers, sailors and aircrew for the same amount of money. This is followed by Saudi Arabia (£45bn), Russia (£41bn), France (£38bn), the UK (£38bn), Germany (£38bn), Japan (£34bn), South Korea (£33bn), Australia (£21bn), Italy (£20bn), Canada (£17bn), Israel (£16bn), Brazil (£14bn), Spain (£13bn), Turkey (£11bn), the Netherlands (£9bn), Iran (£9bn) and Poland (£9bn).

Exchange rates affect the relative orders of many countries in the list, for example between Russia, France, the UK and Germany which can move up or down according to movements in their currencies, while there are a number of caveats over the estimates used given the different structures of armed forces around the world and a lack of transparency in what is included or excluded in defence budgets in many cases.

In addition, the use of in-year military spending does not necessarily translate directly into military strength. Military capabilities built up over many years or in some cases (such as the UK) over many centuries need to be taken into account, as do differing levels of technological development and spending on intelligence services, counter-terrorism and other aspects of security. Despite these various caveats, estimated military spending still provides a useful proxy in understanding the global security landscape and in particular highlights the UK’s position as a major second-tier military power – in the top 10 countries around the world.

Global Britain in a Competitive Age: the Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy sets out some ambitious objectives for security and defence, which it summarises as follows: “Our diplomatic service, armed forces and security and intelligence agencies will be the most innovative and effective for their size in the world, able to keep our citizens safe at home and support our allies and partners globally. They will be characterised by agility, speed of action and digital integration – with a greater emphasis on engaging, training and assisting others. We will remain a nuclear-armed power with global reach and integrated military capabilities across all five operational domains. We will have a dynamic space programme and will be one of the world’s leading democratic cyber powers. Our diplomacy will be underwritten by the credibility of our deterrent and our ability to project power.”

The estimates of military spending used in the chart were taken from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)’s Military Expenditure Database, updated to current exchange rates.

This chart was originally published by ICAEW.

ICAEW chart of the week: US federal budget baseline projections

19 February 2021: Congressional Budget Office expects a decade of trillion-dollar deficits as the US public finances are hit by the pandemic.

The US Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently updated its ten-year fiscal projections for the federal budget, providing the subject for this week’s #icaewchartoftheweek. 

As the chart illustrates, there was a shortfall of $3.1tn between revenues and spending by the federal government in the year ended 30 September 2020, with a projected deficit of $2.3tn in the current financial year and deficits ranging from $0.9tn to $1.9tn over the coming decade.

The CBO is at pains to stress that its projections are not a forecast of what will happen but instead, provide a baseline against which decisions can be assessed. This is particularly relevant at the moment as Congress debates a potential $1.9tn stimulus plan that would increase this year’s deficit significantly if passed.

On the path shown in the projections, the CBO calculates that debt held by the public will increase from $21.0tn (100% of GDP) in 2020 up to $35.3tn (107% of GDP) by 2031. Will policymakers in the US be comfortable in continuing to run with such a high level of debt compared with pre-pandemic levels of around 80% of GDP and a pre-financial crisis level of less than 40%?

The projections are based on assumed economic growth excluding inflation of 4.6% in the current financial year following on from a fall of 3.5% last year, with the recovery continuing into 2022 with growth of 2.9%. Economic growth over the following nine years to 2031 is expected to average around 1.9%. This is much lower than the average rate of growth experienced before the financial crisis just over a decade ago but may still prove optimistic given the potential for a recession at some point over the next ten years.

The UK counterpart to the CBO – the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) – is currently working its abacus quite hard on updating its five-year projections ready for the Budget on 3 March. The OBR’s projections will be extremely useful in understanding the near-term path in the UK’s public finances, including the effect of any tax and spending announcements that may be featured in the Budget. Unfortunately, they will be less useful than the CBO’s projections in that they are not expected to provide a refreshed baseline for the second half of the decade when the hard work of starting to repair the public finances is expected to take place.

This chart was originally published by ICAEW.

ICAEW chart of the week: CP Trans-Pacific Partnership

12 February 2021: The UK wrote to New Zealand at the start of this month formally requesting permission to apply for membership of the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership. What is the CPTPP and what opportunities would joining provide to the UK?

The #icaewchartoftheweek is on the UK’s application to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), a group of eleven countries on the other side of the world. This trade organisation was established to improve trade links between countries surrounding the Pacific, reducing trade barriers between the countries involved and aligning regulations in areas such as intellectual property. 

It is sometimes described as the third largest free-trade area in the world, after the US-Mexico-Canada Free Trade Agreement (USMCA, formerly NAFTA) and the EU-EEA-Switzerland Common Market, but it is important to understand that it is much less integrated than a customs union (with shared tariffs), a common market (with fuller regulatory alignment) or an economic union (such as the highly integrated EU Single Market with unified standards and regulations). 

According to IMF forecasts for 2021, Japan is the largest economy in the CPTPP with GDP of £3,815bn, while Brunei is the smallest with GDP of £9bn. The other members are Canada (£1,335bn), Australia (£1,125bn), Mexico (£890bn), Malaysia (£280bn), Vietnam (£275bn), Singapore (£270bn), Chile (£220bn), New Zealand (£165bn) and Peru (£150bn). This compares with a forecast of £2,180bn for UK GDP in 2021.

Membership is not exclusive, with CPTPP members involved in a number of other multilateral free trade agreements. Canada and Mexico are also members of USMCA. Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam and Brunei are members of the 10-nation Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), which in turn has free trade agreements with Japan, Australia and New Zealand, China, India and South Korea. Mexico, Peru and Chile are members of the four-nation Pacific Alliance with Columbia. In addition, China is leading the formation of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership which includes all of the non-Americas members of the CPTPP in addition to China, South Korea and the other members of ASEAN.

The CPTPP replaced the original proposal for a Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) that would have included the US, but the remaining nations decided that it was still worthwhile pursuing a revised trade arrangement even after the US withdrew its application four years ago. A new administration could see the USA change its mind and seek to join the CPTPP after all.

Why does the UK want to join a trade pact on the other side of the world? The immediate trade benefits are likely to be relatively modest given the distances involved and which are likely to be secured through bilateral trade agreements already under discussion.

One reason is likely to be geo-political, as membership would strengthen relationships with allies in the Pacific, advancing the UK Government’s ‘global Britain’ agenda. There may also be an advantage in being directly involved in the development of international trade policy in the Pacific region which contains the two largest individual economies in the world (the US and China), potentially influencing trade policy across the planet.

Of course, part of the motivation might be less about trade in the Pacific and more about trade across the Atlantic. After all, if the US were to join the CPTPP, the UK’s membership might provide a base from which to eventually develop a more comprehensive bilateral free trade agreement. This could fulfil a key strategic objective of improving trade ties with the USA by going around the world, albeit in a lot more than 80 days!

This chart was originally published by ICAEW.

ICAEW chart of the week: Government bond yields

11 December 2020: Ultra-low or negative yields provide governments with an opportunity to borrow extremely cheaply, but what will happen if and when interest rates rise?

Government 10-year bond yields Germany -0.61%, Switzerland -0.59%, Netherlands -0.53%, France -0.36%, Portugal -0.02%, Japan +0.01%, Spain +0.02%, UK +0.26%, Italy +0.58%, Greece +0.60%, Canada +0.76%, New Zealand +0.91%, USA +0.95%, Australia +1.02%

On 9 December, the benchmark ten-year government bond yield for major western economies ranged from -0.61% for investors in German Bunds through to 0.95% for US Treasury Bonds and 1.02% for Australia Government Bonds, as illustrated in the #icaewchartoftheweek.

One of the more astonishing developments of the last decade or so has been the arrival of an era of ultra-low or negative interest rates, even as governments have borrowed massive sums of money to finance their activities. This is not only a consequence of weak economic conditions and the slowing of productivity-led growth, but it has also been driven by the monetary policy actions of central banks through quantitative easing operations that have driven down yields by buying long-term fixed interest rate government bonds in exchange for short-term variable rate central bank deposits.

For bond investors this has been a wild ride, with the value of existing bonds sky-rocketing as central banks have come calling to buy a proportion of their holdings, crystallising their gains. The downside is the extremely low yields available to debt investors on fresh purchases of government bonds, which in some cases involve paying governments for the privilege of doing so.

Yields vary according to maturity, with yields on UK gilts ranging from -0.08% on two-year gilts through to 0.26% for 10-year gilts (as shown in the chart) up to 0.81% on 30-year gilts. In practice, the UK issues debt with an average maturity between 15 and 20 years, so the current average cost of its financing is higher than that shown in the chart at between 0.48% and 0.77% being the yields on 15-year and 20-year gilts respectively. This has the benefit of locking in low interest rates for longer, in contrast with most of the other countries shown that tend to issue debt with an average maturity of less than ten years.

Quantitative easing complicates the picture, as by repurchasing a significant proportion of government debt and swapping it for central bank deposits, central banks have reversed the security of fixed interest rates locked in to maturity with a variable rate exposure that will hit the interest line immediately if rates change. 

In theory, this should not be a problem, as higher interest rates are most likely to accompany stronger economic growth and hence higher tax revenues with which to pay the resultant higher debt interest bills, but in practice treasury ministers are not so sanguine. In leveraging public balance sheets to finance their responses to COVID-19 – on top of the legacy of debt from the financial crisis – governments have significantly increased their exposure to movements in interest rates, just as other fiscal challenges are growing more pressing.

Expect to hear a lot more over the coming decade about the resilience of public finances as governments seek to reduce gearing and reduce their vulnerability to the next unexpected crisis, whenever that may occur.

This chart was originally published on the ICAEW website.

ICAEW chart of the week: US federal deficit

30 October 2020: The US federal government spent $3.1tn more than it received in the year to 30 September 2020, more than three times the $1.0tn deficit incurred in 2019.

Chart showing US federal deficit for the year to 30 Sep 2020. Receipts £3.4tn, deficit $3.1tn and outlays $6.5tn.

The #icaewchartoftheweek is on the $3.1tn deficit incurred by the United States federal government, according to its preliminary financial results for the 2020 fiscal year published by the Bureau of the Fiscal Service, a unit of the US Department of the Treasury. 

Analysis by the US Congressional Budget Office reports that receipts of $3.4tn were 1% lower than in the previous financial year, which can broadly be split into a 6% increase in the first half from October 2019 to March 2020 and a 7% decrease in the second half of the year ending in September. 

As illustrated by the chart, the principal sources of revenue are $1.3tn in social security payroll tax deductions and $1.6tn in personal income taxes, together with $0.2tn in corporate income taxes and $0.3tn from excise taxes, customs duties, estate and gift taxes and other net receipts.

Outlays of $6.5tn in FY2020 were $2.1tn or 47% higher than in the FY2019, reflecting a 7% increase in the first half and an 87% increase in the second half. These increases were principally driven by the fiscal response to the coronavirus pandemic, including $0.6tn for small business furlough programmes, a $0.4tn increase in unemployment compensation, $0.3tn more in refundable tax credits, $0.2tn in emergency health measures and over $0.1tn for the Coronavirus Relief Fund. Other increases included $0.1tn in student loan subsidies, $0.3tn in federal reserve investments and $0.2tn in other increases, offset by a $0.1tn reduction in interest costs.

Outlays can broadly be split between $4.7tn of ‘mandatory’ spending on welfare, $0.3tn in interest costs and $1.5tn in ‘discretionary’ spending by the federal government. 

Welfare comprises spending on social security (principally pensions), Medicare and Medicaid (healthcare), veterans, income security (unemployment benefits and tax credits) and the Paycheck Protection Program for small businesses, while spending on the federal government is dominated by the $0.7tn spent on defence, followed by $0.2tn on education, $0.1tn on homeland security and justice, $0.1tn on transport and $0.4tn on everything else.

It is important to stress that these receipts and outlays relate only to the federal government and exclude what is normally in the region of $3tn in receipts and spending of state and local governments across the US. There is usually a surplus at the state and local level but this year is likely to be different as state and local tax revenues collapse and spending to tackle the pandemic locally continues to grow.

External public debt was $21.0tn at 30 September 2020, an increase of $4.2tn or 25% over the $16.8tn the US federal government owed a year previously, reflecting borrowing to fund the $3.1tn deficit and a net $1.1tn in lending, principally to businesses as part of the coronavirus response.

Even more borrowing is probable irrespective of which candidate wins the presidential election next week as the US struggles to get the pandemic under control and the increasing likelihood that Congress will pass a multi-trillion dollar stimulus bill after the election is over.

This chart was originally published on the ICAEW website.