We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

Debate House Prices


In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

What is the optimum % of government expenditure of GDP

With Osbournes latest budget being questioned on where he will raise some of finances to fund certain projects, there is the likelihood of more austerity in the next few years.

So what percentage if GDP could be seen as an optimum level and why (if anyone knows)?

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/oct/16/government-spending-countries-gdp

I have found this article which shows various countries of the developed world and government expenditure as a percentage of GDP. Pretty much all are reducing state expenditure but there are quite wide differences among countries. It is noticable that there are countries where the standards of living are seen as good with both high and low levels of government spending.

So where's the happy medium?
«1345

Comments

  • chewmylegoff
    chewmylegoff Posts: 11,469 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    32.435792%
  • shortchanged_2
    shortchanged_2 Posts: 5,546 Forumite
    32.435792%

    How did you get such an exact answer?
  • BobQ
    BobQ Posts: 11,181 Forumite
    Ninth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    32.435792%

    Sounds like you are looking fro an argument tonight? :D
    Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.
  • CLAPTON
    CLAPTON Posts: 41,865 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    are the figures comparable?
    there are numerous ways of fiddling the figures
    PFI versa capital expenditure
    how nationalised or semi-nationalised or regular industries are accounted for
  • shortchanged_2
    shortchanged_2 Posts: 5,546 Forumite
    CLAPTON wrote: »
    are the figures comparable?
    there are numerous ways of fiddling the figures
    PFI versa capital expenditure
    how nationalised or semi-nationalised or regular industries are accounted for

    I guess tax levels are high in the scandanavian and benelux countries, so that accounts for the greater level of government expenditure. These countries also have high standards of living.
  • Generali
    Generali Posts: 36,411 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    I'll look up the studies when I get time but IIRC, empirical studies have suggested about a third. Don't quote me on that because I honestly can't remember though.
  • shortchanged_2
    shortchanged_2 Posts: 5,546 Forumite
    Generali wrote: »
    I'll look up the studies when I get time but IIRC, empirical studies have suggested about a third. Don't quote me on that because I honestly can't remember though.

    Interesting Gen as very few countries are anywhere near that. And as I stated earlier countries such as Sweden, Denmark, Austria and Norway are nowhere near that but are regarded as having a good standard of living.
  • Generali
    Generali Posts: 36,411 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    Interesting Gen as very few countries are anywhere near that. And as I stated earlier countries such as Sweden, Denmark, Austria and Norway are nowhere near that but are regarded as having a good standard of living.

    Like I say, I honestly can't remember and it might be 50% or 10%.

    The way I see it is that all Government expenditure requires taxation and all taxation reduces economic wellbeing (see the deadweight loss effect for the reason). Some Government expenditure increases output however (e.g. having a functioning system of property rights) so that deadweight loss needs to be tolerated. Other Government expenditure isn't 'necessary' but makes us feel a lot better about ourselves (e.g. state provision of health care, welfare payments, foreign aid) and then there's a load of hazy stuff in the middle (e.g. state education). Remember this is just about maximising economic output, there is no 'fair' or 'just' in here as yet.

    The key to the whole thing lies in the idea of deadweight loss. It's one of those things like compound interest that is incredibly powerful but that many people don't really get.
  • BobQ
    BobQ Posts: 11,181 Forumite
    Ninth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    Who actually says that there is an optimum figure? If people want to pay more/less tax and have better/worse services then what is wrong with different figures?

    Ultimately it is a political decision and Osborne is hell bent on making it as low as he thinks he can get away with, not for an economic reason but for a political goal. If people vote to allow him to do this fine.
    Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.
  • Generali
    Generali Posts: 36,411 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    BobQ wrote: »
    Who actually says that there is an optimum figure? If people want to pay more/less tax and have better/worse services then what is wrong with different figures?

    Ultimately it is a political decision and Osborne is hell bent on making it as low as he thinks he can get away with, not for an economic reason but for a political goal. If people vote to allow him to do this fine.

    There are different levels of spending and tax which are consistent with differing levels of economic efficiency.

    If the Government wrecks the economy by taking all the resources then the poor end up with nothing.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.4K Life & Family
  • 258.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.