Last week’s welfare reform white paper included the following graph, claiming to show that “many households will receive more under Universal Credit than under the current system”; at first viewing, the graph does appear to show small weekly gains for those in lower income deciles, and insignificant losses for those higher up the income distribution. But all is not as it seems.
Last week’s welfare reform white paper included the following graph, claiming to show that “many households will receive more under Universal Credit than under the current system”:
At first viewing, the graph does appear to show small weekly gains for those in lower income deciles, and insignificant losses for those higher up the income distribution. But all is not as it seems. Left Foot Forward has now ascertained that:
• The graph compares household income in 2014/15 after the introduction of Universal Credit with what household income would be in 2014/15 after the impacts of the welfare cuts outlined in the Chancellor’s June Budget are taken into account.
These cuts included the linking of benefits to CPI (rather than RPI); significant Housing Benefit cuts; and significant Tax Credit cuts. Some claimants will be better off under UC than they will be after the cuts, but many will be worse off under UC than under the current system before the cuts.
• The graph does not include childcare costs. These costs are significant, paying upwards of £10,000 for low-income working families with more than one child.
Given that the Spending Review cut eligible childcare payments by 10 per cent, and that the White Paper warns of further reductions in childcare costs for working families, leaving these costs out of a better-off analysis seems confusing.
• The graph includes all households in the UK, not just those who are claiming benefits or Tax Credits. While most people in the bottom deciles will be receiving benefits or Tax Credits, most people in higher deciles will not (where it is only households with children who receive significant levels of Tax Credit support).
Amalgamating all households in this way arguably distorts the graph – making the losses among middle earners seem far lower than they will be (as including households for whom there is no change – i.e. they continue to receive nothing – distorts the average).
• If the graph was based on an analysis comparing the current system with Universal Credit, if it only considered households in receipt of benefits and Tax Credits and if childcare costs were included, it would show a very different picture. Gains would be far less – and many would be shown to lose significantly.
Important questions remain unanswered about what the real impacts of Universal Credit will be, and exactly which benefits and Tax Credits are being included or excluded from its reach. A Government committed to transparency should be willing to provide more details, and to be clearer about the impacts their changes will have for households across Britain.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
32 Responses to “Many will be worse off under Universal Credit”
Nicola Smith
Hi Anon,
In my view the name is deceptive. Benefits and Tax Credits are currently ‘universal’ in so far as those with low enough incomes are entitled to receive them, but this benefit will be ‘universal’ in name but far more tightly means tested in practice. We know now that lots of people will be worse off. Even the DWP’s own misleading graph shows that people in decile 6 and above will lose. These people are not high earners – people in decile 6 and 7 earn live on household incomes of under or around £30k a year.
Nicola
Spir.Sotiropoulou
RT @leftfootfwd: Many will be worse off under Universal Credit http://bit.ly/9p8eWK
Guy Manchester
Hopefully there'll cum a time whn evry1 realises every statemnt/graph & statistic coming frm t condems is fiddld lies http://j.mp/bUoD9r
Super-Pedant
I hate to cause trouble, but (after commma) if the two phrases could normally be standalone there *should* be a comma.
william
The facts. The welfare budget is being cut,and it’s implementation simplified.It follows that a significant proportion of existing recipients receive less.Why should people earning c£30k or more receive anything?I thought welfare was for the accidental poor,not the’ All of you rely on the state ‘ Gordon Brown view of the state that cost Labour 100 seats at the last election.