Nick Clegg’s tax threshold plans go half way to addressing the problem of working poverty, but it goes no way towards addressing the cause.
Shelly Asquith – is a campaigns assistant at One Society
Nick Clegg’s call today to speed up the process of raising the tax threshold to £10,000 will lift one million people out of income tax. Clegg aims to reduce the UK’s excessive levels of income inequality, which should be welcomed, but there has always been controversy about whether this proposal is the best way to achieve that aim.
For example, as research (pdf) by Tim Horton and Howard Reed, published by Left Foot Forward before the general election found, of the £16.5 billion this policy is expected to cost, 94 per cent would go to those on middle to higher incomes – not those at the bottom.
Since then, the deputy prime minister has explored ways of reducing the extent to which the policy provides accidental benefits to those who least need it.
But some issues remain. While Clegg claims his move to push up the threshold will aid “alarm clock Britain” – his alias for Ed Miliband’s “squeezed middle” – it does little to address the hardship faced by those already earning less than the current threshold.
Overall, according to Horton and Reed, three million households in the poorest quartile of the income distribution would not benefit from this policy at all.
Another problem is that for many people, much of the positive impact of lower taxes will be clawed back (pdf) by reduced benefits. Many will see a reduction in their Income Support, Child Tax Credit and basic State pension allowances as a result of being lifted out of income tax.
Clegg’s proposal would increase the take-home incomes of a substantial number of families, but there may be more cost-efficient ways of achieving similar goals, which should also be considered.
Encouraging employers to pay a living wage, (or raising the national minimum wage), would lift many out of poverty. The government could also seek promote accessible training for, and incentives for employers to create, more skilled and semi-skilled jobs.
This would address the so-called ‘hollowing out of the labour market’ as well as mobilising many of those who find themselves stuck in unskilled, service sector jobs propped up by benefits.
Clegg’s solution goes half way to addressing the problem of working poverty, but it goes no way towards addressing the cause.
See also:
• Lib Dems’ tax threshold policy robs Peter to pay Paul – Will Straw, January 10th 2011
• A Thatcherite horror sequel – Ken Livingstone, June 21st 2010
• Clegg’s £10k tax allowance is no Tory concession; it’s a Tory dream – Tim Horton and Howard Reed, May 12th 2010
• Lib Dem tax policy “fails the fairness test”: IFS says so too – Tim Horton and Howard Reed, April 29th 2010
• Lib Dems: Our tax plans are fair and progressive – Danny Alexander, March 29th 2010
• Lib Dem tax policy: Our response to your responses – Tim Horton and Howard Reed, March 20th 2010
• Lib Dem tax policy “fails the fairness test” – Will Straw, March 13th 2010
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.
40 Responses to “Is Clegg’s tax threshold plan the best way to reduce income inequality?”
Shelly Asquith
Is Clegg’s tax threshold plan the best way to reduce income inequality? http://t.co/iHKsztJ4 by @One_Society’s @ShellyAsquith
Robert CP
Is Clegg’s tax threshold plan the best way to reduce income inequality? http://t.co/iHKsztJ4 by @One_Society’s @ShellyAsquith
Mr. Sensible
The devel will be in the detail, I think.
Timnich0ls
Indeed Mr Sensible. The detail is the lowest paid only get to keep 15p per pound, whilst those who are better off get to keep the whole lot.
Timbo
About 700,000 of the lowest paid households get both Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit. This are both calculated using net earning. HB has a taper rate of 65% and CTB has a taper rate of 20%. So the lowest paid only keep 15p of every pound from raising the threshold. It’s a very badly thought out policy and very poorly targeted money if the intention is to help the lowest paid.