Complex.
Christine Lagarde, the French Finance Minister was interviewed recently in London ahead of one of the G8 series meetings.
She gave a good description of what GDP (Gross Domestic Product) is which is quite helpful.
Basically she said "if you are rich enough to employ a gardener and you pay a decent wage and he does a good job, that increases your GDP". She added, "If you fall in love with your gardener and marry him, after the wedding, you might decide not to pay him any more as you are now a couple but he continues to do the garden. That decreases your GDP".
"The effect is the same, your garden still gets done - maybe even better than before but there is a nett loss to the GDP of your household."
Does that help?
The UK national dept is around 800 billion UK£. The UK national dept is about 58% of UK/GDP
The USA national dept is around 12 US$. The USA national dept is around 73% of USA/GDP
The national dept (UK) was around 35% of GDP until the banks needed bailing out.
The national dept (UK) was at 29% of GDP until fiscal control was relaxed to spend more on schools and hospitals (when it rose to 35%)
While you may look in horror at 800 billion, other countries have MUCH more serious problems.
Japan has a national dept of around 859,000 yen (yes: It is) (194% of GDP)
This is a 2007 list of nations depts:
Note the initial fall in national dept around 1997, then the rise when spending increased on hospitals and schools, and the massive rise when the financial institutions needed to be saved from themselves.
Of far more serious concern though is future dept. Particularly public service pension dept, currently standing at over 1 pounds (the police service pension is being "topped-up" by taxpayers to the tune of £480,000,000 each year).
No matter which gov has power (if any really do: ever) the problems faced in the future are going to be costly: For us.
nice guy, you aint never gonna see a balance sheet because if one was available, we would all see where we are being robbed and that could cause a whole lot of trouble. people would see who was benefiting the most from state welfare and it certainly aint the poor.
Since the tax years runs from April-April you are unlikely to get current expenditure until next year.
However, the office of national statistics has comprehensive figures you may like to peruse:
Basically, the bank-bail-out cost around 19.8% of GDP (somewhere around 300 billion, although the figure is likely to be higher in the end). And please do not forget that most of the hundreds of billions are not cash-handouts to profligate wasters (no matter what your personal opinions are of bankers(w)) but loans/shares-purchased and in many cases the "investment" will be returned with a profit (small/if)
You can find all the figures you want for income , I have not the time nor the patience this day (sorry).
And while people may moan about the deficit, it really is not much to worry about. The UK will return to growth early next year, although small. The U.K. entered the recession late and unlike Germany, the U.K. economy is mainly financial which was worst hit, while Germany's and others are based on manufacturing so they have/will return to growth earlier.
You can blame most of the lax regulation of banking/investment on earlier decisions made on the basis that the country could exist as a service industry country....
As for public service pensions: There is not going to be a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. The problem is one of servicing the pension requirements out of current income and having no investment in operation to provide the funding. Even the personal contribution requirement (required now for the majority of public servants (not the top ones)) is used to pay existing pensioners and is not invested.
However, public service pension aside, things are not all bad: They just look that way !
Compared to other countries the national dept is controllable and finance-able.
Things need to change. More "public services" need to be removed from the financial disaster that awaits them....they need to be financed differently. The NHS is moving to "private" companies providing the services (trusts) and pensions are going to be investment based (if there is anything to invest in). The old-age (state) pension will go eventually (30-50 years), meanwhile it is a millstone around the neck....the low birth rate means that the working population will drop (1 working person to retired (no, I don't know anybody with only 65% of them needing a pension)...but other countries have much worse problems.
The UK has a minor problem at the moment...but it will ease over the next 6 months anyway and return to growth by the end of the second quarter next year. Low growth, but only what you can expect for a country that has put all its eggs in one basket (finance/service).
Have fun !
