Abolition of Saving Gateway will hit poorest families the hardest

Combined with other measures in the budget which are likely to disproportionately affect the poor, the abolition of the Saving Gateway is further indication that this Budget is not as progressive as the government claims.

Our guest writer is Dalia Ben-Galim, associate director of the Institute for Public Policy Research (ippr)

It may have been overlooked by many but the 2010 Budget announced that the Saving Gateway has been deemed “unaffordable” and so will not go ahead as had been planned. The Saving Gateway was a ground-breaking scheme designed to incentivise and reward saving among low-income families by providing a “match” for each £1 saved. Rigorous pilots have shown that the Saving Gateway has been effective in increasing saving among low-income families.

Evidence from ippr’s ‘consumer spending and debt research explored how low income families spend, save and borrow. Most families wanted to save and many successfully saved for Christmas and birthdays. For example, a 33 year old parent with two children told us:

“I’ve not been one for saving long-term. I can save for a purpose.”

Families had often interpreted ‘saving’ as not spending and were able to juggle income and expenditure for a particular event. But most families did not manage to build up any ‘rainy day’ savings. And very few were managing to save for the medium or long term, even though many would like to do so to help their children.

A 46 year old mother of two told us:

“We have not been able to put any [money] in [to our savings]. We’re spending so much in the shops and supermarkets and on bills.”

This was was a typical response; ippr’s research concludes that the lack of precautionary saving for low-income families leaves many more of them vulnerable to income and expenditure “shocks”. A quarter of our research participants experienced a fall in household income as a result of unemployment or changed working conditions. Another 10 families (out of 58) reported “shocks” of unexpected spending due to the breakdown of a household item (e.g. fridge, boiler, washing machine).

While many were trying to save – for example, one family was saving their child benefit money, and another was saving £10 a week into a child savings account – none had long-term savings. Low-income families would benefit from increasing their savings and building an asset base.

The Saving Gateway provided a “match” for savings – rather than tax relief – which many families with no or low earnings cannot benefit from. We already spend £1.6 billion on tax relief for ISAs (and almost £22 billion in total on tax relief for savings). The Saving Gateway would have cost just £115 million and would have provided a vehicle for many low-income families to regularly save and build a savings habit.

The Coalition government says it is keen to increase household saving rates but has just taken away a key mechanism that incentivises and rewards saving among low-income households. Combined with other measures in the budget which are likely to disproportionately affect the poor, this is a further indication that this Budget is not as progressive as the government claims.

12 Responses to “Abolition of Saving Gateway will hit poorest families the hardest”

  1. Left Foot Forward

    Abolition of Saving Gateway will hit poorest families the hardest: http://bit.ly/dxoJSf

  2. Tim Horton

    I agree with this 100%, Dalia – great piece. What with the Saving Gateway abandoned, CTF abolished, and maternity grants scaled back, the coalition have done huge damage to the asset-based welfare agenda.

    It’s a bit rich hearing Tories and Liberals banging on about how those on low incomes need to take responsibility and save for their future, when they are dismantling really effective ways to encourage saving

  3. Robert

    When I worked by the time I paid for food rent council tax, electric gas water, telephone, TV license I was totally broke, my wife would then put two or three quid into a jar to pay for special events. How the hell can you save when your take home pay is 180.00 a week.

  4. Billy Blofeld

    This is a luxury and obvious candidate for cutting.

    Interestingly though, the Treasury wants civil servants to squeal on government waste anonymously via Wikileaks – so at least the people on the ground will have an opportunity to guide the Treasuries axe.

Comments are closed.