The big Budget losers? Working families

IFS analysis finds that a million working families will lose £500 a year as new tax changes come in.

Amidst the clamour over pasties, jerry cans, and email surveillance, the Budget seems like a distant memory. But with the new financial year starting tomorrow, certain changes will come into force – and it is not looking good for middle-income families.

Despite the raft of negative headlines about George Osborne’s so-called “granny tax”, analysis published today by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has found that pensioners stand to suffer the least.

In fact, it is families with children who will bear the brunt. Up to a million families with children stand to lose £511 a year under new tax and benefit changes.

More than 850,000 families on middle incomes – with an average income of £38,000 – will lose their entire child tax credit, which is worth around £545 a year. The picture is bleaker lower down the income scale. Up to 212,000 working couples with children, earning less than £17,000 a year, will lose all their working tax credit – worth up to £3,870 a year – unless they increase their working hours.

This is because of two changes to tax credits. The first is a cut in the income limit for child tax credit from about £40,000 to about £26,000 for a family with one child. The second is an increase in the number of hours that families with children must work to qualify for working tax credit from 16 to 24 hours a week.

Despite the increase in the personal allowance – which is incorporated into the IFS figures –these families will still see a net loss. Separate analysis by the Resolution Foundation suggests that the changes to working tax credit mean that a single earner on the minimum wage (£6.08 per hour) who works 20 hours a week will lose £3,910 – more than a quarter of their income.

It is a political tight spot for the coalition, which purports to be a family friendly government. The “squeezed middle” is set to be a potent battleground, both in upcoming local elections and in the next general election.

The Treasury highlighted the rise in personal tax allowance, and stressed that the analysis was commissioned by the Labour shadow chancellor, Ed Balls.

But in conjunction with the cut in the top rate of tax for those earning over £150,000 a year, this squeeze on ordinary families is difficult to defend. Indeed, reducing the 50p rate of tax presented a gift for Labour: tax cuts for millionaires as the rest of the population continues to suffer is a clear, media-friendly message. Polls already show that a majority of people think the cabinet is out of touch with ordinary voters; this will do nothing to help. So far, a loss of support for the coalition’s austerity has not been matched by an upsurge of trust in Labour on the economy. The question is whether these real cuts to the incomes of working families – the very demographic the coalition claims to defend – will lead to a shift in public opinion. It is certainly clear – once again – that the government cannot truthfully claim that its cuts are fairly distributed.
 

Ed Balls commissioned the IFS analysis. Photograph: Getty Images

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

Could Jeremy Corbyn still be excluded from the leadership race? The High Court will rule today

Labour donor Michael Foster has applied for a judgement. 

If you thought Labour's National Executive Committee's decision to let Jeremy Corbyn automatically run again for leader was the end of it, think again. 

Today, the High Court will decide whether the NEC made the right judgement - or if Corbyn should have been forced to seek nominations from 51 MPs, which would effectively block him from the ballot.

The legal challenge is brought by Michael Foster, a Labour donor and former parliamentary candidate. Corbyn is listed as one of the defendants.

Before the NEC decision, both Corbyn's team and the rebel MPs sought legal advice.

Foster has maintained he is simply seeking the views of experts. 

Nevertheless, he has clashed with Corbyn before. He heckled the Labour leader, whose party has been racked with anti-Semitism scandals, at a Labour Friends of Israel event in September 2015, where he demanded: "Say the word Israel."

But should the judge decide in favour of Foster, would the Labour leadership challenge really be over?

Dr Peter Catterall, a reader in history at Westminster University and a specialist in opposition studies, doesn't think so. He said: "The Labour party is a private institution, so unless they are actually breaking the law, it seems to me it is about how you interpret the rules of the party."

Corbyn's bid to be personally mentioned on the ballot paper was a smart move, he said, and the High Court's decision is unlikely to heal wounds.

 "You have to ask yourself, what is the point of doing this? What does success look like?" he said. "Will it simply reinforce the idea that Mr Corbyn is being made a martyr by people who are out to get him?"