英国论坛
这个只是保守党数据的一小部分把戏
全部原因我没有全部找出！
当然还有他们克扣福利这一块！很多人应该拿到却没拿到的例子也很多！！
不愿意看英文看下么软件中文翻译。
Accounting rules unravel the mysteries of Britain’s economy
Anyone who relishes the sound of economists eating their words is in for a treat this September. When the UK adopts the new international standards for national income accounting, three almost universally held “truths” about Britain’s economy will wither or die. If you want to avoid egg on the face come September 30, it is time to start mugging up on the likely effects of the new rules.
Some of the changes have been flagged for years. The level of UK gross domestic product will rise because statisticians will count research and development, the manufacture of weapons systems and some other intangibles as investment in future prosperity rather than a current cost to business.
The Office for National Statistics has already said UK GDP levels will rise significantly, between 2.5 per cent and 5 per cent. Last year the US added 3.5 per cent to its GDP when introducing the same reforms.
If that was it, the effect on Britain’s self-image would be small. But there is another, much more important change, which will affect the way statisticians account for some defined benefit pension schemes. They are moving from cash to accruals accounting principles for funded schemes.
The sentence is enough to put almost everyone off, but the effect is profound. The new standards will destroy three pieces of conventional wisdom about the British economy: households do not save, companies sit on huge piles of cash and household incomes have stopped rising in line with GDP.
In future, instead of counting the money employers put into their pension funds as household income, the figures will reflect the contractual promises companies have made. With UK final salary pensions heavily underfunded, the promises are much bigger than the contributions already made so household income will rise and corporate and local authority incomes will fall.
The effect is huge because Britain still has a substantial funded pension system. While the change last year added just 1.5 percentage points to the US savings ratio, the Office for National Statistics says it will double Britain’s measure of household savings from about 5.5 per cent of disposable income to about 11 per cent. British households will ditch their reputation for profligacy overnight.
Correspondingly, the measured savings of the corporate sector will decline – as will those of local authorities, which also run funded final salary pension schemes. Since incomes will appear higher, much of the puzzle over why households did not appear to benefit from recent rises in GDP will disappear.
An important question is whether the changes in pension accounting are reasonable. We should ask whether the new way of measuring GDP is better at measuring the productive performance of an economy.
I have little doubt that it is far better – despite legitimate concern that pension promises are more difficult to measure than cash payments into pension funds. If companies make legally binding pension promises today, that is the same as paying their staff more money and forcing them to save it for the future.
The new measures also accord better with reality. Britons could afford to get by with lower household savings (as measured by the old rules) because many employees were building up very generous pension rights. Companies were not investing their cash piles in new buildings or machinery because they feared they would need the money to meet the pension promises they have made. They also economised on current pay because these pension promises were so expensive.
Indeed, there is a strong argument that central government’s unfunded final salary pensions should receive the same treatment in national accounts, something that would make the UK’s public finances look even uglier than they already do.
So, Britain is a nation of savers. Or at least it was. The death of the final salary pension in the private sector means that the young and newer employees are almost certainly not saving adequately. Part of the profligacy picture therefore lives on.
But the new accounting standards will show, correctly, that it is a generational and distributional issue, not a national one.
[email protected]
Related Topics
UK GDP,
United Kingdom,
Office for National Statistics UK
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2014. You may share using our article tools.
Please don’t cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.
下面是谷歌翻译，真没时间个个翻译
任何人谁津津乐道的经济学家吃他们说话的声音这个月是在一种享受。当英国采用新的国际标准，国民收入核算，三人几乎普遍认为的“真理”对英国的经济就会枯萎或死亡。如果你想避免鸡蛋在脸上来9月30日现在是时候开始对新规则的可能影响抢劫了。
一些变化已经被标记为十年。英国国内生产总值的水平将上升，因为统计学家将计算的研究和开发，武器系统的制造和一些其他无形资产作为投资，未来的繁荣，而不是目前的成本来经营。
在国家统计局已经表示英国GDP水平将显著上升，为2.5％和5％。去年，美国加3.5％，至其国内生产总值将相同的改革时。
如果是这样吧，在英国的自我形象的影响是很小的。但还有另一种，更为重要的变化，这将影响统计人员解释一些界定福利退休计划的方式。他们是从现金转向用于资助计划应计会计原则编制。
这句话是足以让几乎所有人都关闭，但效果是深刻的。新的标准将摧毁三件关于英国经济的传统智慧：家庭不救，公司坐于现金和家庭收入堆积如山已停止与GDP同步增长。
而不是计算投入自己的养老基金作为家庭收入的钱雇主在未来，这些数字将反映公司已作出的合约承诺。与英国最终薪金养老金资金缺口严重，该承诺是不是已经做了这么家庭收入会上升，企业和地方政府的收入将下降的贡献更大。
的影响是巨大的，因为英国仍拥有庞大的资助的养老保险制度。而去年同期的变化只是加入1.5个百分点至美国的储蓄率，国家统计办公室表示，将增加一倍英国的衡量居民储蓄从约5.5％可支配收入的2％至约11％。英国家庭会抛弃他们的挥霍声誉过夜。
相应地，企业部门的储蓄测将下降 - 如将那些地方当局，这也跑资金最终薪金退休金计划。由于收入将出现走高，很多难题了，为什么家庭似乎没有从最近的上涨中受益的GDP将消失。
一个重要的问题是改变养老金计是否合理。我们应该问的GDP测量的新方法是否是量度一个经济体系的生产性能更好。
我毫不怀疑，这是更好的 - 尽管正当关切养老金承诺更加困难比现金付款到养老基金来衡量。企业如果把今天具有法律约束力的养老金承诺，那就是一样支付员工更多的钱，并迫使他们保存它的未来。
新措施也符合现实更好。英国人有能力获得通过家庭储蓄下降（由旧的规则来衡量），因为很多员工都建立了非常慷慨的退休金权利。公司未投资的现金桩在新建建筑物或机器，因为他们担心他们会需要钱，以满足养老金承诺他们所取得的。他们还economised对目前的薪酬，因为这些养老金承诺是如此昂贵。
事实上，有较强的论点，即中央政府的资金没有着落的最终薪金养老金应该得到同样的待遇国民账户，这会使得英国的公共财政状况看起来更丑比他们已经这样做了。
因此，英国是储户的国家。或者至少它是。最终薪金退休金在私营部门的死亡意味着，年轻的新雇员，几乎肯定是不节能充分。因此，挥霍图片的一部分生命。
但新会计准则将显示，正确的，它是一个辈分和分配问题，而不是一个国家之一。
回帖
What is your point? This is nothing to do with how the Tories interpret the economic figures…
First, the adoption of international standard is decided by the international community, including OECD and Eurostat. As a national statistics office, ONS adopts this new standard to catch up with international compatibility. This decision is independent to what the UK government and ruling party think.
Second, ONS has decided to adopt new rule at the end of September. We haven’t reached the beginning of September yet. The figures being published and used in public debates are still in line with the old standard.
Third, it is a common sense in economics that aggregated data may behave differently from dis-aggregated data. What Tories have told you is aggregate economic figure that is more familiar to everyone. I don’t think they are trying to cook a misleading dataset to fool people at this point.
回帖
GDP跟收入本来就是不是一个东西，虽然是相关的，GDP回复到pre-crisis的水平并不代表着收入也马上就回到以前的水平，但是GDP一定要增长才会带来收入的持久增长。你这种用收入来论证GDP的数字有水实在是无知+脑残。
其次，GDP的数字是ONS计算出来的，不是保守党，也不是保守党的政府。ONS是一个独立于政府的机构。它要决定改变GDP的计算方法也是它的事，不是政府的决定。
再次，现在的经济危机是工党造成的，工党已经一次次的证明他们在运作经济方面不行。你这么反对保守党，让工党上台经济只会更烂。
回帖
你说的那句屁话哪句反驳到我说的东西？谁不说GDP不是重要数据？我说的是你用收入没回复到危机前的水平来论证GDP有水分就是脑残，明白了吗脑残?
就算你跪舔的工党都没有质疑GDP的数字，你就别在这里秀下限了
回帖
你的逻辑真是太强大了。麻烦读不懂就不要来污染空气了好吗？我说：GDP一定要增长才会带来收入的持续增长，这句话你能推断出GDP增长一定会带来收入增长？别在这里拽经济学什么的了，进一步验证你是脑残而已，你鸡毛都不懂
回帖
印了那么多钞票，纯数字游戏。物价上涨快过工资涨幅。人民还是处在水深火热之中;P
回帖
无知…
回帖
不管谁在台上，什么时候，政府靠得住过？
回帖
Tory party is a political party. To keep itself in position or to maintain the policy consistency and stability, it has to do something to attract voters. Labour would do the same if it’s in position. No one likes political parties completely. But sometimes, you got to choose. The fact is that Labour is a party for boom, but Tory is a party for crisis. YOU MAY NOT LIKE IT, BUT YOU NEED IT.
A continuous GDP growth may not be a sufficient condition for the welfare improvement, but it is necessary. If it is R&D and technology driven, the economic growth is sustainable. On the other hand, if it is driven by a pure monetary expansion, the economic growth is temporary, and normally comes with inflation risks; the welfare improvement is uncertain.
The current situation is that the UK total GDP has rebounded, but the UK per capita GDP hasn’t. It is normal when the economy has just recovered from a severe crisis. What would you expect when you are just out of a trauma? The wage growth is still lower than the inflation growth, but the CPI inflation is fairly stable. I think Tory did a fairly good job getting UK out of the crisis.
Yes. There is austerity going on. There are policies that might harm some people’s benefits. But a well-controlled austerity and policy reform are necessary! UK cannot carry on to squander like the Labour was in charge! I am not sure if you are really studying/or studied economics. Economists like crises. It is a chance we should not waste, a good time for reform! If Tory can use it to get rid of unnecessary benefits, ease tax payers’ burden, and spend the money in the right place, that is an achievement! People in the UK should wake up and recognise that they cannot take things as granted. Although there are policies that I am not agreeing with, but at least Tory is taking the right direction.
My last point, behave like an economist if you like to be an economist. Throwing swear words at each other is not what an economist would do… not even a politician.
回帖
有投票权的各投各的，社会阶层不同，政见不同。没投票权的，就别瞎操心了;P
回帖
回帖
回帖
回帖
回帖
回帖
回帖
回帖
回帖