Wednesday 4 January 2012

Behind enemy lines

From the BBC:

Families with children will be hardest hit by tax and benefit changes aimed at cutting the deficit, a charity (1) argues.

The Family and Parenting Institute (FPI) says the average income of households with children will drop by 4.2% between 2010-11 and 2015-16, the equivalent of £1,250 a year. Average household income however will fall 0.9%, or £215 a year, say the FPI... The figures, calculated for the FPI by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) (2), suggests much of the fall in income during these years will be due to tax and benefit changes, as well as other reasons such as falling incomes.

"This research confirms that families with children are shouldering a disproportionate burden," said Katherine Rake (3) of the FPI...

In reply the government pointed to policies that it says are already relieving the burden for families. "The prime minister acknowledged that families are facing difficult times so the government has taken practical steps to help them - cutting fuel duty, freezing council tax and cutting income tax for millions," said the government in a statement. (4)


1) Might that be a fakecharity? Why yes! I gave their accounts a closer look two years ago. But weren't Blulabour going to get rid of all the fakecharities which Nulabour set up? You might think so, as this lot appear to be a thorn in the government's side, but as I said two years ago:

We all knew that Labour would do a scorched earth policy before handing over the keys to the Tories, but they've pre-financed this particular bunch to continue the fight from behind enemy lines: of all that lovely taxpayers' money rolling in, they've tucked away £7,480,898 at the bank (balance sheet, page 15 of the accounts) to keep them going for a couple of years after Blulabour has taken over.

Their taxpayer-funded income in the years straddling the change of government, i.e. to 31 March 2010 and 31 March 2011 (see page 14 2011 accounts) was £8.5 million a year, half what it had been under Nulabour, but they still had £5.8 million cash as at 31 March 2011 to keep them going for a couple of years.

2) The IFS are pretty straight, I think we can take their figures at face value.

3) Who is "raking" it in, no doubt.

4) Totally irrelevant statement: those changes or freezes were incorporated in the figures anyway; and those changes or freezes apply to all households, not just 'families with children' (what the FPI actually mean is 'families with children on benefits').

Note also that the government is obsessed with freezing the least-bad taxes fuel duty and council tax, and claims to be reducing income tax while having massively increased stealth taxes on income such as VAT and National Insurance, which are far worse.

20 comments:

PJH said...

"... £1,250 a year. Average household income however will fall 0.9%, or £215 a year, say the FPI."

So, the tax payer is directly subsidising kids by ~£1,000 a year?

Why?

Mark Wadsworth said...

PJH, when you were a child, did your parents claim Child Benefit for you; avail themselves of 'free' NIC healthcare for you or send you to a state school or one supported by the taxpayer? Did you ever borrow books from a public library?

PJH said...

Only one of those is a direct subsidy paid to the parents as 'income'.

Or are you implying that the NHS, schools and libraries are included in that £1250 figure.

If they are, indeed, included in that figure then I'd postulate that the number is far too low.

Mark Wadsworth said...

PJH, your original question was 'why?' and not 'how much?' or 'how is this calculated?'...

Only one of those is a direct subsidy paid to the parents as 'income'.

True but irrelevant.

Or are you implying that the NHS, schools and libraries are included in that £1250 figure?

No of course not.

If they are, indeed, included in that figure then I'd postulate that the number is far too low.

Correct, it would be more like £10,000 a year if you include those.

So please answer my question to you, and then we'll tackle the question of 'why?' again.

Jer said...

Odd that the government is subsidising having children - since most of the parents are too young to vote...

Mark Wadsworth said...

PJH, I agree on your points 1) to 3).

I also agree with the second sentence in your last paragraph, i.e. when I'm in charge, Child Tax Credits and Child Benefit will be rolled into a single, flat rate, non-means tested payment for each of the first three children in a family, end of, no more 'baby farming' and no more subsidies to religious nutters.

I am also a flat-taxer; there is no real difference between a [transferable] tax-free personal allowance and a universal flat cash payment, it's just that the latter is simpler.

As for the 'why?', one justification is to get rid of the 'mothers pay gap', i.e. £2,000-odd for each of the first 3 children is approx. enough to bring mothers' earnings back into line with those of men (childless or otherwise) or childless women. Such a Child Benefit is not actually a contribution towards the cash cost of having children at all.

Anonymous said...

I am not saying that it isn't true, but, I do have to do a double take every time one of these reports get published and the conclusion is that "it is the [insert name of interest group covered by the report] that is going to be hardest hit by these ..."
As the list of reports and thus the groups to be hardest hit gets longer and longer it surely means that eventually there will be an acknowledgement that they have all been hit the hardest, which is to say the same, which I doubt to be the case but ... {signals a return to start of probably circular argument in bewilderment} ...

More to the point, when is one of these think tanks going to do a study about my circumstances and how I am being battered sideways by it all, where is the [fake]charity making the case for me getting a share [or a bigger share] of the spoils and a reduction in my outgoings as well - about time someone starting paying for me. Do I have to start my own [fake] charity to have this happen ? If so, what are the "going rates" for commissioning surveys that will come up with the findings I want and which will make my case, and which think tank offers the best value for money ?

Mark Wadsworth said...

Anon 14.34: "what are the "going rates" for commissioning surveys that will come up with the findings I want and which will make my case, and which think tank offers the best value for money?"

The most reputable is the IFS, but I imagine they are very expensive (I don't know how much).

I can do workings proving anything you like, for example:
- single, childless people are treated unfavourably by the tax/welfare system
- single, childless people are on the whole much better off than single people with children.
- single people with children are treated especially favourably by the tax/welfare system
- single people with children are not treated quite as favourably as a year or two ago.

The big problem is getting the media to rehash your press release, the workings are easy, and the even bigger problem is getting the pol's to listen.

mombers said...

@PJH - if a child is poorly fed, clothed and/or housed, school's not going to have much of an impact on them. So it's in society's best interest to make sure that children get food, clothes and shelter as well as education and health. I think you'll find that child benefit doesn't come close to what it costs to provide a decent childhood even for one child. Unless you're not working, in which case your housing is taken care of and you might be able to afford a subsistence level of food and clothes, but the children have a huge chance of ending up unemployed and/or in jail for most of their lives. It's a terribly difficult problem to solve and I agree that some sort of cut off needs to happen, e.g. if you've not worked in say 5 years and already have three children, any subsequent children get taken into care and your benefits stay the same. But no society is going to prosper if they don't invest heavily in their young.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Mombers:

"child benefit doesn't come close to what it costs to provide a decent childhood even for one child"

Agreed - if you just look at Child Benefit (my point above). Child Tax Credits is a whole 'nother topic...

"If you've not worked in say 5 years and already have three children, any subsequent children get taken into care and your benefits stay the same."

By all means cap benefit at 3 kids, but forget about taking surplus kids into care. That is to be done in extreme circumstances only (where there is sever risk to life and limb of child) and not as a kind of collective punishment.

Anonymous said...

I might cap child benefit at 2.075 kids since that is (apparently) the UK's replacement rate (the number of kids a couple should have in order to replace themselves when they die).

Mark Wadsworth said...

Anon 17.18, well no, because that doesn't account for women who don't want or can't have kids. So let's round it up to three.

B, yes, also true. It shouldn't really make a difference (whether father gets transferable personal allowance from each child, or whether the cash value is paid to the mother) but in practice it does.

Mark Wadsworth said...

p12, you can say what you like, but research suggests that if ChB is paid in cash to the mother, that the average amount of money spent on 'sensible stuff' (food, clothes, children's toys) is higher than if e.g. father gets a transferable personal allowance.

Nobody said it is "all used wisely" and nobody said that if ChB is increased by £1 per child per week that the amount spent per child goes up by £1 per week, it might only go up by 50p, it might be 25p, so what?

Learn to look at ChB as a simple way of getting rid of the overall average mothers' pay gap!

Anonymous said...

A newspaper columnist enters the argument - whether from stage right or stage left I am not sure, seeing as it is the G ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/04/labour-hiding-behind-child-poverty

and some of the comments bear a striking resemblance to earlier exchanges here :-

drippingonyourface : 4 January 2012 08:18PM

And the people, via the government, pay for the upkeep of individuals' children why?

Anonymous said...

Mark,

When you were a child did you're parent enjoy the "benefits" of removal of Schedule A taxation?

Just becuase someone in the past got an idiotic benefit doesn't mean we should carry on with encouraging feckless reproduction (child benefit).

You're very obvious inconsistency/special pleading.

AC1

Anonymous said...

PJH
I disagree with points 1-3

State education is a FAILURE.
State treatment rationing is a FAILURE.
Libraries are now IRRELEVANT, keeping them going is a massive waste.

If you fancy subsidising them, then I'm sure in a post income tax, welfare state world there'd be a charity who'd take your earnings or you could set one up.

AC1

Mark Wadsworth said...

AC1, I am entirely consistent. Child Benefit is best way of sorting out Mothers' Pay Gap. End of.

I hope that you understand the huge difference between:

a) Child Benefit, which is tantamount to Citizen's Income for kids. It's flat rate, non-contributory, non-taxable, cheap to administer and paid regardless of family circumstances.

and

b) Child Tax Credits, which are "encouraging the feckless to breed" to use the rather tasteless Daily Mail-speak. It's very complicated, savagely means-tested, has huge admin costs, huge fraud and error, is hugely skewed towards 'single mothers' etc etc.

If you insist on confusing two completely different things then it is pointless discussing with you. I can't be bothered explaining the differences for the hundredth time, so why don't you go and look them up?

Bayard said...

"and paid regardless of family circumstances."

I thought the Envious had persuaded the Tories to means-test CB.

Mark Wadsworth said...

B, The Tories came up with a fine publicity stunt to show that "We are all in this together" by proposing to stop ChB payments to households where either parent is a higher rate taxpayer, but they appear to have shelved it again.

It was a supremely shit idea, but I didn't harp on about it because I would be one of the parents affected, so that would have looked like special pleading on my part.

Bayard said...

"but they appear to have shelved it again"

Now there's cunning! Come up with a sop to the Envious, then quietly drop it because it was always a shit idea, but leaving the Envious thinking that they'd got one over on the rich bastards.