2010 income/expenditure figures are out

ei.sdraob

it should be of interest to people here
2010 income expenditure figures are out
this thread and graph has their last years data and estimates ill update accordingly once have time

the cuts in expenditure have been disappointing when compared to UK where they have really taken the knife out and have high inflation (some might say out of control)

gurramok

So actual tax revenue went down but the non-tax revenue from the banks(Income from Credit Inst) went up?

That doesn't show an economy stabilising does it?

zig

can someone explain what "Taoiseach's Group (incl Legal Votes)" is? Am I reading right where it says its costing 156 million?

wiseguy

For all the noise this year about "savage cuts" the expenditure has barely budged downwards.
Ireland has the same deficit as California which on its own would be worlds 8th largest economy.
Go Fianna Fail :rolleyes:

noodler

wiseguy wrote: »

For all the noise this year about "savage cuts" the expenditure has barely budged downwards.
Ireland has the same deficit as California which on its own would be worlds 8th largest economy.
Go Fianna Fail :rolleyes:

Well, I don't think the OP has included the capital receipts that offset some of the expenditure.

EDIT: Don't know about the OP but I think this table is pretty good /illustrative.

http://www.budget.gov.ie/budgets/2011/Documents/Economic%20and%20Fiscal%20Outlook.pdf

P D23 or Table 8.

We really have an off the wall system of public finances on a purely accounting basis.

zig

wiseguy wrote: »

For all the noise this year about "savage cuts" the expenditure has barely budged downwards.
Ireland has the same deficit as California which on its own would be worlds 8th largest economy.
Go Fianna Fail :rolleyes:

well tbf while I know there was big cuts in previous years, the big one (the 6Billion) is for 2011 not 2010

ei.sdraob

zig wrote: »

well tbf while I know there was big cuts in previous years, the big one (the 6Billion) is for 2011 not 2010

Despite all of these

The expenditure is estimated to go up next year :eek:

Due to debt for most part

noodler

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Despite all of these

The expenditure is estimated to go up next year :eek:

Due to debt for most part

Aye, the non-voted Capital.

johnnyskeleton

Page 5 shows the bank recap monies, well, sort of.

2009 shows 4bn to ANGLO
2010 shows 100m to INBS and 625 to EBS.

Whatever happened to AIB and BOI?

Also, 2009 shows a payment of 3bn into the NPRF, presumably to help filter AIB/BOI recaps through as "investments"

Thus, there are three areas where the deficit has changed:

1) current spending is up 1.2bn over income since 2009;
2) voted capital expenditure is down 1bn over income;
3) non voted capital expenditure is down a whopping 5.8bn.

Which gies us the 5.9bn reduction in the deficit.

Think about that for a second. 5.8bn of the 5.9bn reduction in the deficit is directly attributable to the discovery of inventive ways to hide the cost of the banks. And of course we all know that the banks have cost far more in 2010 than in 2009.

ei.sdraob

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

well, sort of.

Oh and NAMA 250mill gone down that rabbit hole, i suppose one of NAMAs costs was that nice office building they rent from one of the developers who owes them money, you couldn't make it up.

johnnyskeleton

noodler wrote: »

Well, I don't think the OP has included the capital receipts that offset some of the expenditure.

EDIT: Don't know about the OP but I think this table is pretty good /illustrative.

http://www.budget.gov.ie/budgets/2011/Documents/Economic%20and%20Fiscal%20Outlook.pdf

P D23 or Table 8.

We really have an off the wall system of public finances on a purely accounting basis.

Those projections are based on tax revenue to go from 31530m in 2010 to 44420 in 2014, or up by 12890. That's a 40% increase in the tax rate (I had to check my calculation several times, and still don't believe it - would appreciate if someone showed me how I did my percentage calculation wrong).

That's 40% over 4 years. That might just about have been possible at the height of the boom, and they are planning the country's future based on that wildly opimistic scenario (that or massive inflation)? Shocking.

johnnyskeleton

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Oh and NAMA 250mill gone down that rabbit hole, i suppose one of NAMAs costs was that nice office building they rent from one of the developers who owes them money, you couldn't make it up.

Sure we don't have to worry, NAMA will never trouble our domestically produced government accounts. Just don't nobody look at what eurostat says about us.

noodler

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Page 5 shows the bank recap monies, well, sort of.

2009 shows 4bn to ANGLO
2010 shows 100m to INBS and 625 to EBS.

Whatever happened to AIB and BOI?

Done through the NPRF. The money in the NPRF is not part of the exchequer calculations.

Also, previously any money spent from the NPRF had to in a listed company - Anglo and INBS are not so that money had to come from the exchequer.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Those projections are based on tax revenue to go from 31530m in 2010 to 44420 in 2014, or up by 12890. That's a 40% increase in the tax rate (I had to check my calculation several times, and still don't believe it - would appreciate if someone showed me how I did my percentage calculation wrong).

That's 40% over 4 years. That might just about have been possible at the height of the boom, and they are planning the country's future based on that wildly opimistic scenario (that or massive inflation)? Shocking.

Definitely overoptimistic I would guess.

Although there are a number of reasons for it:

-exports are at a record high this year
- Corp tax is higher than expected this year
- The VAT rate will be increased in 2012 (or was it 2013)
- Income tax bands and credits will be reduced further in 2012, 2013 and 2014 (although not by nearly the same amount as was done in the 2011 budget (they naturally assume employment easing and a further increase in income tax a result).
- Water charges wouldn't count as tax revenue so we can scratch that
- The Site Value Tax (prop tax) is coming in 2013 as well.

Scarab80

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Oh and NAMA 250mill gone down that rabbit hole, i suppose one of NAMAs costs was that nice office building they rent from one of the developers who owes them money, you couldn't make it up.

250m issued to NAMA in May as working capital, this was returned from NAMA in October, recorded under capital receipts instead of offset against the payments for some reason. The total NAMA costs in the exchequer figures is 49m which is 49% of the share capital of the SPV.

Cookie_Monster

anything on the large PS cost reductions due to all the efficiency measures agreed to under the Croker deal?

noodler

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

anything on the large PS cost reductions due to all the efficiency measures agreed to under the Croker deal?

In the 2011 budget there are labels (targets) for each department called "Administrative Savings".

These only add up €200m all in.

Now I don't know if these are the intended savings from the Croke Deal but they seem very low.

Under the IMF/EU Deal progress has to have been made on this front by end Q3.

Riskymove

ei.sdraob wrote: »

yes almost 60 billion :eek:

here is what I get when extend last years excel figures with the new figures

the white paper estimates you quote are based on a pre-budget position and without the actual end of year returns

Riskymove

noodler wrote: »

In the 2011 budget there are labels (targets) for each department called "Administrative Savings".

These only add up €200m all in.

Now I don't know if these are the intended savings from the Croke Deal but they seem very low.

Under the IMF/EU Deal progress has to have been made on this front by end Q3.

those figures would only be the departments themselves, i.e. the Civil Service, which is only around 10% of the PS

zig

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Despite all of these

The expenditure is estimated to go up next year :eek:

Due to debt for most part

Was just flicking through it, thats actually out of date, after each table it mentions that that is pre budget 2011 figures and does not take into account the recovery plan.

edit, sorry didnt see riskymoves post already said that.

noodler

Riskymove wrote: »

those figures would only be the departments themselves, i.e. the Civil Service, which is only around 10% of the PS

I don't think so.

I mean, the Department of Education for example, and as I understand it, has responsibility for the extra hour the teachers have to work etc, I don't think those savings (assuming they are the CP Deal savings) are only for the civil service.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

we spend close to 60 billion in 2010 just 1 billion less than 2009, with the projected expenditure set to rise next year mainly due to debt, all while the economy was deflating

a turn of the corner :rolleyes:

Yeah but, when we say adjustment we generally mean a chnage in the accounts we can actually change (i.e. the voted capital and current).

Riskymove

ei.sdraob wrote: »

The figures I used are final

1. go to finance.gov.ie
2. on front page you will find:
*statement spin from minister
and
* the document i linked to in OP


the URL i linked to thru'out the thread are identical


try harder next time, the figures are there for all too see, burying head in sand wont make them go away, we spend close to 60 billion in 2010 just 1 billion less than 2009, with the projected expenditure set to rise next year mainly due to debt, all while the economy was deflating

a turn of the corner :rolleyes:

what is all this rant about? try harder to do what?


you have put a figure of 59,160 for 2011 expenditure in your table

this is from the white paper which is a pre-budget position that does not take into account the budget changes

that is all I am saying, just pointing it out

Taxi Drivers

For those who are poring over the release of these figures it is worth noting that The Exchequer Account is not the same as the Public Finances.

No mention of Motor Tax, Rates or PRSI on the taxation side. And on the expenditure side about 40% of Social Welfare Expenditure is not included.

zig

ei.sdraob wrote: »

which document are yee looking at
i linked to the latest one released a few days ago
i used the budget one to get the estimate for 2011, the final figure for 2010 is from above new document




there is 5 billion of a difference between the budget document and the final document

Ok i wont lie, im genuinely confused. This document, http://budget.gov.ie/budgets/2011/Documents/White%20paper%20English.pdf seems to tell us estimates for 2011, however does not take into account the budget/4 year plan, so I dont consider that valid, is this correct?

And this document is an exchequer statement , http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/exchequerstatements/2010/Enddecstatement.pdf, showing spending and receipts,for 2009, and 2010, (not estimates)
Im not sure how your coming to the conclusion that we'll have more spending in 2011 using these figures, not arguing , just trying to figure it out.
what do you mean by this?

here is what I get when extend last years excel figures with the new figures

noodler

P23 in this document if you want to see the projected public finances 2011-2014

http://www.budget.gov.ie/budgets/2011/Documents/Economic%20and%20Fiscal%20Outlook.pdf

Taxi Drivers wrote: »

For those who are poring over the release of these figures it is worth noting that The Exchequer Account is not the same as the Public Finances.

No mention of Motor Tax, Rates or PRSI on the taxation side. And on the expenditure side about 40% of Social Welfare Expenditure is not included.

I thought I had made this clear myself actually but each department starts out with a gross total frm which various receipts are subtracted (Social contribution Fund (prsi) etc as your post says) and then the NET figure is entered into the exchequer.

Again, p23 in the document I listed above I think is quite illustrative

Riskymove

ei.sdraob wrote: »

which document are yee looking at
i linked to the latest one released a few days ago
i used the budget one to get the estimate for 2011, the final figure for 2010 is from above new document

now that I read it again I see this document setting out expenditure as:

Note 4 - 46,434,206
Note 5 - 6,504,504
Note 6 - 2,045,516

This comes to 54,984,223

where do you get your 59 billion figure from?

Riskymove

noodler wrote: »

I don't think so.

well can you link to an example of where these are listed and I'll have a look

I mean, the Department of Education for example, and as I understand it, has responsibility for the extra hour the teachers have to work etc, I don't think those savings (assuming they are the CP Deal savings) are only for the civil service.

my poiint ios that I think administrative savings by the department of education (as an example) would be the savings from changes within the department rather than for all teachers

in any event an extra hour worked for no change in pay wont affect spending so wont appear anywhere

Riskymove

noodler wrote: »

Again, p23 in the document I listed above I think is quite illustrative

yes it is indeed, thanks

Taxi Drivers

As has been pointed out getting a handle on government expenditure in Ireland is rather difficult due to the antiquated nature of the accounting system used. Although we are trying to work through the 2010 figures it is worth noting that for 2009, total government expenditure total government expenditure was actually €75.2 billion! (And this excludes the costs of the banks.)



There was about €69 billion spent by central government. About €6 billion of this went to local government who has spent an additional €6 billion of their own. The 2010 figure is likely to be in the same region.

noodler

Riskymove wrote: »

well can you link to an example of where these are listed and I'll have a look




my poiint ios that I think administrative savings by the department of education (as an example) would be the savings from changes within the department rather than for all teachers

in any event an extra hour worked for no change in pay wont affect spending so wont appear anywhere

http://www.budget.gov.ie/budgets/2011/Documents/Summary%20of%20Measures%20Combined.pdf

There you go - its in the second half.

I honestly don't know for sure if the "administrative efficiencies' refer to the PS or simply the Civil Service as you suggest.

noodler

Taxi Drivers wrote: »

As has been pointed out getting a handle on government expenditure in Ireland is rather difficult due to the antiquated nature of the accounting system used. Although we are trying to work through the 2010 figures it is worth noting that for 2009, total government expenditure total government expenditure was actually €75.2 billion!



There was about €69 billion spent by central government. About €6 billion of this went to local government who has spent an additional €6 billion of their own. The 2010 figure is likely to be in the same region.

Aye, personally I'd prefer to leave out local Government for the sake of discussion but each to their own.

Taxi Drivers

noodler wrote: »

Aye, personally I'd prefer to leave out local Government for the sake of discussion but each to their own.

The important thing is to get a consistent measure but even that is troublesome given our system. As for local government - they're also spending our money!

noodler

Taxi Drivers wrote: »

The important thing is to get a consistent measure but even that is troublesome given our system. As for local government - they're also spending our money!

I'm constantly asked for a total government expenditure figure and I hate having to say everytime that it depends.

The problem being if I give a total Gov Exp figure (with current, capital, non-voted and local government) then it can seem to some that we are spending 75 and taking in 31 which obviously is not correct.

A reform here would be nice.

Riskymove

noodler wrote: »

http://www.budget.gov.ie/budgets/2011/Documents/Summary%20of%20Measures%20Combined.pdf

There you go - its in the second half.

I honestly don't know for sure if the "administrative efficiencies' refer to the PS or simply the Civil Service as you suggest.

aha now I see what you mean

AFAIK those efficiencies are a targeted reduction in each departments administrative allocation that they will have to meet

different departments will do different measures to meet them

they will include reductions in staff costs, training, T&S, consultanices, printing, stationary etc etc

they may overlap with some CPA items but are not directly related to it

Taxi Drivers

noodler wrote: »

I'm constantly asked for a total government expenditure figure and I hate having to say everytime that it depends.

The problem being if I give a total Gov Exp figure (with current, capital, non-voted and local government) then it can seem to some that we are spending 75 and taking in 31 which obviously is not correct.

A reform here would be nice.

Total government receipts were around €56.4 billion in 2009 which with the €75 billion in expenditure give a deficit of just under €19 billion (excluding expenditure of the banks).

ei.sdraob

Riskymove wrote: »

now that I read it again I see this document setting out expenditure as:

Note 4 - 46,434,206
Note 5 - 6,504,504
Note 6 - 2,045,516

This comes to 54,984,223

where do you get your 59 billion figure from?

oh Yes, doh! I added 2009 columns again

apologies :eek: and thank you, I thought I was going mad or we were looking at wrong documents!

ill update the excel+graph

waffleman

These figures are crazy - I despair at where we will end up

How did we get so far into the ****? We don't have the politicians to deal with the Europeans - seems they were always 10 steps ahead of Berty, Cowen and Lenihan at every turn. Now we are repeatedly getting bent over at an alarming rate.

ei.sdraob

here it is (thanks to Riskymove)



down 5 billion not 1, "a little done alot more to do" so

Riskymove

ei.sdraob wrote: »

here it is (thanks to Riskymove)



down 5 billion not 1, "a little done alot more to do" so

thanks

there is also the issue of 2011 estimate

as mentioned above its a pre-budget position and should be reduced by the budget

we dont get revised figures until revised estimates are published

however the budget aimed at a 6bn adjustment with 1.5m in taxes I think so 4.5 less expenditure I guess

EDIT: just seen that its €4bn less so that €59bn becomes €54bn

Scarab80

Riskymove wrote: »

thanks

there is also the issue of 2011 estimate

as mentioned above its a pre-budget position and should be reduced by the budget

we dont get revised figures until revised estimates are published

however the budget aimed at a 6bn adjustment with 1.5m in taxes I think so 4.5 less expenditure I guess

EDIT: just seen that its €4bn less so that €59bn becomes €54bn

This is the budget revision to the white paper as set out here.



It is still about 880m short of the 6bn in budget cuts so maybe someone could identify where that is.

noodler

Taxi Drivers wrote: »

Total government receipts were around €56.4 billion in 2009 which with the €75 billion in expenditure give a deficit of just under €19 billion (excluding expenditure of the banks).

Oh I know, I just mean it depends on what they want the figure for - or more importantly what measure it is going to be used to abroad for compatibility purposes.

noodler

Scarab80 wrote: »

This is the budget revision to the white paper as set out here.



It is still about 880m short of the 6bn in budget cuts so maybe someone could identify where that is.

Yep I can.

It is something I haven't seen in the media on budget day or anytime since either:

Basically the €6bn adjustment in the four plan is actually a 5.3bn adjustment in the Budget 2011 (the Taxation figures clearly fell short in my additions).

Much closer inspection revealed that €700m was to be raised by selling semi-states.

EDIT:

Nearly went mad looking for the proof - here it is

http://www.budget.gov.ie/budgets/2011/Documents/Economic%20and%20Fiscal%20Outlook.pdf

P D17

Its not actually just asset disposals - thats only 300m of it, I am not technically savy enough to print the table