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 For example, increasing the work allowance (the amount a household is allowed to earn before UC starts to be withdrawn) each time the tax threshold is increased would be one way to do it.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)

Getty
Show Hide image

The joy of only winning once: why England should be proud of 1966

We feel the glory of that triumphant moment, 50 years ago, all the more because of all the other occasions when we have failed to win.

There’s a phrase in football that I really hate. It used to be “Thirty years of hurt”. Each time the England team crashes out of a major tournament it gets regurgitated with extra years added. Rather predictably, when England lost to Iceland in Euro 2016, it became “Fifty years of hurt”. We’ve never won the European Championship and in 17 attempts to win the World Cup we have only won once. I’m going to tell you why that’s a record to cherish.

I was seven in 1966. Our telly was broken so I had to watch the World Cup final with a neighbour. I sat squeezed on my friend Colin’s settee as his dad cheered on England with phrases like “Sock it to them Bobby”, as old fashioned now as a football rattle. When England took the lead for the second time I remember thinking, what will it feel like, when we English are actually Champions of the World. Not long after I knew. It felt good.

Wembley Stadium, 30 July 1966, was our only ever World Cup win. But let’s imagine what it would be like if, as with our rivals, we’d won it many times? Brazil have been World Champions on five occasions, Germany four, and Italy four. Most England fans would be “over the moon” if they could boast a similarly glorious record. They’re wrong. I believe it’s wonderful that we’ve only triumphed once. We all share that one single powerful memory. Sometimes in life less is definitely more.

Something extraordinary has happened. Few of us are even old enough to remember, but somehow, we all know everything that happened that day. Even if you care little about the beautiful game, I’m going to bet that you can recall as many as five iconic moments from 50 years ago. You will have clearly in your mind the BBC commentator Kenneth Wolstenholme’s famous lines, as Geoff Hurst tore down the pitch to score his hat-trick: “Some people are on the pitch. They think it’s all over. It is now”. And it was. 4 - 2 to England against West Germany. Thirty minutes earlier the Germans had equalised in the dying moments of the second half to take the game to extra time.

More drama we all share: Geoff Hurst’s second goal. Or the goal that wasn’t, as technology has since, I think, conclusively proved. The shot that crashed off the cross bar and did or didn’t cross the line. Of course, even if you weren’t alive at the time, you will know that the linesman, one Tofiq Bakhramov, from Azerbaijan (often incorrectly referred to as “Russian”) could speak not a word of English, signalled it as a goal.

Then there’s the England Captain, the oh-so-young and handsome Bobby Moore. The very embodiment of the era. You can picture him now wiping his muddy hands on his white shorts before he shakes hands with a youthful Queen Elizabeth. Later you see him lifted aloft by his team mates holding the small golden Jules Rimet trophy.

How incredible, how simply marvellous that as a nation we share such golden memories. How sad for the Brazilians and Germans. Their more numerous triumphs are dissipated through the generations. In those countries each generation will remember each victory but not with the intensity with which we English still celebrate 1966. It’s as if sex was best the first time. The first cut is the deepest.

On Colin’s dad’s TV the pictures were black and white and so were the flags. Recently I looked at the full colour Pathe newsreel of the game. It’s the red, white and blue of the Union Jack that dominates. The red cross of Saint George didn’t really come into prominence until the Nineties. The left don’t like flags much, unless they’re “deepest red”. Certainly not the Union Flag. It smacks of imperialism perhaps. In 1966 we didn’t seem to know if we were English or British. Maybe there was, and still is, something admirable and casual about not knowing who we are or what is our proper flag. 

Twelve years later I’m in Cuba at the “World Festival of Youth” – the only occasion I’ve represented my country. It was my chance to march into a stadium under my nation’s flag. Sadly, it never happened as my fellow delegates argued for hours over what, if any, flag we British should walk behind. The delegation leaders – you will have heard of them now, but they were young and unknown then – Peter Mandelson, Trevor Phillips and Charles Clarke, had to find a way out of this impasse. In the end, each delegation walked into the stadium behind their flag, except the British. Poor Mandelson stood alone for hours holding Union Jack, sweltering in the tropical sun. No other country seemed to have a problem with their flag. I guess theirs speak of revolution; ours of colonialism.

On Saturday 30 July BBC Radio 2 will commemorate the 50th anniversary of the 1966 World Cup Final, live from Wembley Arena. Such a celebration is only possible because on 16 occasions we failed to win that trophy. Let’s banish this idea of “Fifty years of hurt” once and for all and embrace the joy of only winning once.

Phil Jones edits the Jeremy Vine Show on BBC Radio 2. On Saturday 30 July the station celebrates the 50th anniversary of the 1966 World Cup Final live from Wembley Arena, telling the story of football’s most famous match, minute by minuteTickets are available from: www.wc66.org