The government's changes to tax and benefits will hurt poorer households significantly harder, according to the respected think tank
The government’s planned changes to tax, tax credits and benefits will reduce household incomes significantly, especially for those on very low incomes, according to new analysis by the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS).
Among households with someone in paid work, those eligible for benefits and tax credits will lose an average of £750 per year because of the changes to tax and benefits announced by the chancellor for this parliament.
And the losses will not be offset by the planned increase in the minimum wage for those aged 25 and over – described by the chancellor as a ‘National Living Wage’ (NLW).
Looking at the extent to which the new NLW will compensate for losses caused by the tax and benefit changes, according to the IFS the average gain from the new NLW for the 8.4 million working-age households who are eligible for benefits and tax credits will be around £200 per year. Factoring in losses from tax benefit changes, this would leave these households worse off by on average £550 a year.
Overall, only around 13 per cent of the losses due to tax and benefit changes for all working age households – including non-working households who for obvious reasons cannot benefit from a NLW – will be offset by the increased NLW.
This is because households gaining from the new NLW are often not the households set to lose the most from tax and benefit reforms. Households in the lower half of the income distribution stand to lose the most from the reforms to taxes and benefits whereas households gaining from the NLW are more evenly distributed across the income distribution, with bigger gains in the middle.
The IFS’ calculations may also be overly optimistic. In its analysis the think tank assumes that the new NLW will have no effect on GDP, employment or hours of work; yet elsewhere it concedes that the the new NLW is likely to depress GDP and employment.
William Elming, a research economist at the IFS and co-author of the briefing note, said:
“The new ‘National Living Wage’ will only offer partial compensation to working age households who will see their incomes fall as a result of tax and benefit changes announced for the current parliament. There may be strong arguments for introducing the new NLW, such as increasing earnings and the incentives to work for the low paid. However, the new NLW cannot be considered a direct substitute for benefits and tax credits aimed at lower income households. The wage increases are not as large as the benefit cuts. And, it is not targeted at the same group who lose from the cuts.”
James Bloodworth is the editor of Left Foot Forward. Follow him on Twitter
12 Responses to “IFS: Government tax and benefit changes to reduce household incomes ‘significantly’”
Harold
You are not on the side of working people, never have been never will be. From your previous comments you support the employers and the conservative politicians, the right wing press, opposed to Trade Unions, the old if it sounds like a duck etc. Remember until about 1980 the UK had near full employment, even then people were poor, when the minimum wage came in many people got the biggest pay rise ever. Self-help, community, church and other good works are very laudable and who could ever oppose but because of the attitude of many, they are never enough.
Sadly the electorate voted in one way or another for this, voting has consequences, only today i learnt of a care working with nine children working 100 hours a week, behind with the rent and Council Tax, but staunch Tory and anti-trade union.
GhostofJimMorisson
Full employment was largely a result of the state propping up failing industries, though not all were, granted, and there was an ideological motivation from Thatcher to finish what Harold Wilson’s Labour government started (more coal mines closed under Wilson’s tenure than Thatcher’s) Trade Unions were ran by militant Trotskyites pursuing their own agenda, ruining it for the majority of moderate members who just wanted to keep their heads down, work and provide for their families.
No one with nine kids would be working full time, let alone 100 hours a week. Slight exaggeration there I think, Mr Harold.