David Cameron's tax cut is a blunt substitute for properly reforming the benefits system. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Raising the tax allowance has reached its limits for helping the poorest families

Labour and the Lib Dems risk making the same mistake.

In his conference speech, David Cameron pledged to take a further 1m of the lowest paid workers out of income tax by lifting the personal tax threshold to £12,500. But if your goal is boosting household income for those at the bottom, how useful is the policy?

On the face of it, anything that enables low income families to keep more of their earnings must help – especially at a time when half of those experiencing poverty live in working households.  Of course for some struggling families this will be the case, but there are three important caveats.

First, the income tax threshold has increased steadily throughout this parliament. By the time it reaches £10,500 next year three million people will have been taken out of income tax altogether. This group of low paid and/or part time workers will see no further gain from raising it higher. If the concern is to boost the income of the lowest-earning individuals, then the limits of this particular policy have been reached for a growing number of people.

Second, the arrival of Universal Credit will sap the power of tax cuts. This is because eligibility for support to working families on low incomes will be assessed on a post-tax basis.  This means that a low-earning household will lose 65p for every £1 it gains from a tax cut. This happens to some extent today as Housing Benefit is assessed on a post-tax basis, although not tax credits. The interaction between different policies needs to be thought about.

This particular problem is relatively easily rectified, however. For example, increasing the work allowance (the amount a household is allowed to earn before UC starts to be withdrawn) each time the tax threshold is increased would be one way to do it. But no party is proposing to do this.

Third, tax policy cannot be looked at in isolation - it must be considered alongside pay, in-work benefits, and the cost of living. Together these factors determine how much disposable income a family has. The picture here has not been pretty for low income families. Since 2008 the cost of essential goods and services increased 28 per cent, far outstripping the rise in the minimum wage (14 per cent) or average wage rises (9 per cent).  And in recent years the value of in- and out-of-work benefits has fallen as they have been uprated by just 1 per cent, more slowly than the general rate of inflation.  This will be further exacerbated by George Osborne’s announcement that working age benefits – including tax credits – will be frozen for two years, which far outweigh any positive impact of tax cuts.

And it is not just the Conservatives that are viewing tax changes as a way of assisting the low paid. Labour is talking about introducing a new 10p starting rate of tax, and the Liberal Democrats are toying with the idea of raising the threshold at which national insurance starts to be paid.

Any one of these measures would put more money in the pockets of some low income working households, but all are a fairly blunt – and expensive – instrument for doing so. Reforming the benefits system so low paid workers in low income families can keep more of what they earn is a more efficient and targeted means of achieving the same goal. But this must be complemented by other measures to address low pay and the cost of essentials.

The key point is that tax will only ever form one part of a strategy to reduce poverty, as JRF sets out in A UK Without Poverty. Improving prospects for people living in poverty has to go beyond changes to the tax and benefits system. This means dealing with the root causes of poverty including low pay, a lack of secure jobs offering enough hours, educational attainment and the high cost of essentials such as energy, housing and childcare.

David Cameron said in his speech it is not enough to pontificate about poverty. He is right. Forecasts show one in four working age adults and one in three children will be living in poverty by 2020. But poverty is not inevitable – with a comprehensive strategy and some political will we can do something about it.

Katie Schmuecker is Policy and Research Manager at the independent Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF)

Carl Court/Getty
Show Hide image

To stop Jeremy Corbyn, I am giving my second preference to Andy Burnham

The big question is whether Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper will face Jeremy in the final round of this election.

Voting is now underway in the Labour leadership election. There can be no doubt that Jeremy Corbyn is the frontrunner, but the race isn't over yet.

I know from conversations across the country that many voters still haven't made up their mind.

Some are drawn to Jeremy's promises of a new Jerusalem and endless spending, but worried that these endless promises, with no credibility, will only serve to lose us the next general election.

Others are certain that a Jeremy victory is really a win for Cameron and Osborne, but don't know who is the best alternative to vote for.

I am supporting Liz Kendall and will give her my first preference. But polling data is brutally clear: the big question is whether Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper will face Jeremy in the final round of this election.

Andy can win. He can draw together support from across the party, motivated by his history of loyalty to the Labour movement, his passionate appeal for unity in fighting the Tories, and the findings of every poll of the general public in this campaign that he is best placed candidate to win the next general election.

Yvette, in contrast, would lose to Jeremy Corbyn and lose heavily. Evidence from data collected by all the campaigns – except (apparently) Yvette's own – shows this. All publicly available polling shows the same. If Andy drops out of the race, a large part of the broad coalition he attracts will vote for Jeremy. If Yvette is knocked out, her support firmly swings behind Andy.

We will all have our views about the different candidates, but the real choice for our country is between a Labour government and the ongoing rightwing agenda of the Tories.

I am in politics to make a real difference to the lives of my constituents. We are all in the Labour movement to get behind the beliefs that unite all in our party.

In the crucial choice we are making right now, I have no doubt that a vote for Jeremy would be the wrong choice – throwing away the next election, and with it hope for the next decade.

A vote for Yvette gets the same result – her defeat by Jeremy, and Jeremy's defeat to Cameron and Osborne.

In the crucial choice between Yvette and Andy, Andy will get my second preference so we can have the best hope of keeping the fight for our party alive, and the best hope for the future of our country too.

Tom Blenkinsop is the Labour MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland