Is it true that Rutte has been cut sharply in the public sector, but that this has not led to a lower burden on citizens?

That’s right.

Since the cabinet Lubbers I and all subsequent cabinets, there is indeed a downturn in the public sector.The last figures I heard were a 4% contraction on an annual basis in terms of government officials (a phenomenon that is unheard of in the industrialised world, the otherwise efficient Germans send officials to take an internship at Dutch governments to learn how they can do more with less). That should all those who love small governments favorably vote, you would think. But the costs are not in the amount of civil servants, if we take the state budget for a moment:

The costs are in the care and social Security (benefits, UZW).

And those astronomical amounts will only become more astronomical in the coming years, because when we look at the population spyramide, we see that there is a Tsunami of ageing to come:

With around 2036 that moment a majority of non-employed persons must be kept alive by a minority of workers.

That would not have been a problem 40 years ago, because the Netherlands still had some money trees in the form of the exploitation of soil treasures.

Free Money, if you like. But thanks to the Dutch disease and some nagging Groningers, it is becoming more and more expensive to earn that free money.

And of course it would be much cheaper to suck Groningen empty and tell the Groningers that they should have built more solid houses.

But I think we all agree that this is a very simplistic thought. We have recently decided that we will not leave the Groningers in the cold, and therefore take that into account. At the same time, we need to slow down the mineral-soil-infusion.

Of course, it is very simplistic to blame all of this Rutte (“Had he not promised that he would put people under 30 out of the assistance to save costs on that astronomical social security?”), but these are now trends that have been deployed since Lubbers I, in combination with accounts that the preceding generations have pushed out for themselves and are now presented (in the knowledge that at each time an account has been pushed, the final amount has become higher).

Expenditure on the public sector has not even fallen below the cabinets of Rutte, but since the economic crisis in 2008 they have grown less with the need (e.g. education, law, care or AOW and other social Benefits) and not correspondingly increased when the national income rose again, as the cabinet shows in the million note 2018:

Source: 3.4 development of expenditure

This overview of the social and Cultural Planning Bureau shows that, since 1998 to 2015, expenditure has grown mainly on (curative and supportive) care and on security and justice.

Large differences expenditure growth public facilities.If the government spends less (tax and premium) money on public services, it usually means that citizens have to pay more themselves (‘ own risk ‘) borrowing money for training or saving for retirement or having to settle for Less services.

Leave a Reply