Jingsamichty

Given the proposed cuts in public services in the UK, I'd like to get a sense of perspective to them. So here's a challenge for you economic and statistical gurus:

In the UK, at present, approximately how many households (number / %) rely on public funds for their income or their support?

A quick scratch of the head produced the following list, which I'm sure is not exhaustive:

• MPs, MSPs, politicians, civil servants, the judiciary, local government employees;
  
• NHS employees;
  
• teachers, lecturers and support staff;
  
• the police, fire and ambulance service, prison services;
  
• Army, Navy & Airforce employees;
  
• lawyers whose main income is via Legal Aid;
  
• Staff at Quangoes whose primary funding comes from Government;
  
• agency/contract/consultant personnel working for any of those categories;
  
• people receiving occupational pensions from any of those categories;
  
• people in receipt of benefits, (not including universal benefits like Family Allowance);
  
• people in receipt of State pensions;
  
• people in prison

Anyone got any ideas about roughly how many people out of 60-odd million that might be?

Sally Redux

Don't forget bailed-out private sector failures.

Almost Canadian

It looks like all but bankers and private client lawyers - oh dear!

Jingsamichty

Bankers would be screwed if it weren't for bailouts, and private client lawyers wouldn't have much to do if it weren't for the judiciary... so the public purse reaches further than you think...!

I think it's a safe bet that over 50% of UK households rely primarily on public sector spending for the majority of their income.

Almost Canadian

I am sure that this is the case, I am also sure that an even larger number rely on tax credits for a significant proportion of their income without realising that, if they didn`t receive them, they would pay less taxes as I would imagine such schemes cost a fortune in salaries, capital expenses, pensions etc to administer.

The extent of the Welfare State in the UK is difficult to justify, but very few politicians would be willing to pay the career ending result of getting to grips with it. I am not suggesting that benefits for the work shy should be reduced to nil, I am talking about the "universal benefits" that simply shouldn`t exist.

Auld Yin

The Canadian system leaves much to be desired but in the UK it's bordering on being a joke. On thinking about that I must ask, is it a further example of the UK sense of humour? If so, it really isn't very funny.

Simon Legree

And don't forget the armies of very expensive bean counter "consultants" hired by the government and paid for out of public funds. Billions a year. Oh yes, and the Private Finance Initiative payments for hospitals, schools and so on. Most of those have not come out of the woodwork....yet ! Again billions of pounds a year. I almost forgot the Olympics which are costing who knows how many billions with little or no accountability. The railways are now costing the taxpayers some four times as much in subsidies to franchisees as they did when the government ran them as British Rail. The list goes on and is all funded by the public sector, meaning the tax payers !