From the TUC

The timebomb threatening the very poorest

21 Mar 2012, by in Society & Welfare

There is not much about social security and tax credits in today’s Budget Report – apart from a threat of much worse to come in one of the appendixes. 

The most significant change has been on Child Benefit. The government is still going ahead with plans to levy extra income tax to take Child Benefit away from families that pay the higher rate; but instead of removing 100 per cent of the benefit once a taxpayer crosses the higher rate threshold they now plan to ‘taper’ it away for taxpayers with an income over £50,000. This is not an insignificant change, and the cost of the concession will peak at £390 million in 2013-14. It’s encouraging that the Chancellor felt he had to show he was responding to the widespread support for CB as a universal benefit; but the much more damaging policy of freezing Child Benefit till 2013 – 14 stays in place.

Compared with the previous two Budgets and the spending review, however, benefits and tax credits got off quite likely. In the Spending Review, for instance, welfare accounted for £18 billion of the £81 billion cuts.

But there was a menacing throwaway remark that should have sent a shiver up the backs of everyone who cares about poverty and inequality. Early in his speech the Chancellor announced:

But even with the Act, the welfare budget is set to rise to consume one third of all public spending.

If nothing is done to curb welfare bills further, then the full weight of the spending restraint will fall on departmental budgets.
The next Spending Review will have to confront this.

So I am today publishing analysis that shows that if in the next Spending Review we maintain the same rate of reductions in departmental spending as we have done in this review, we would need to make savings in welfare of £10 billion by 2016.

When you look for this analysis in the Budget Report, it isn’t immediately obvious where it is. It’s in Annex A, under the innocuous heading of “Trade-offs between AME and DEL”. The 2010 Spending Review runs out after 2014-15, and this Annex looks at spending in the following two years – further cuts in “annually managed expenditure” are going to be needed, of £6.6 billion in 2015-16, rising to £10.5 billion in 2016-17. The Annex makes it plain that benefits and tax credits are the biggest component of annually managed expenditure and that most other components “are either non-discretionary … or are self-financing.”

So brace yourself for another round of spending cuts, right at the time when the economy is supposed to be recovering. Think of what the cuts we’ve already had mean, the thousands of pounds some low-paid working families will lose next month, the cuts to disabled children’s benefits and to Employment and Support Allowance. We don’t yet know what the next round of benefit cuts will look like, but no-one can say we haven’t been warned that we face a second round that will leave social security in an even worse state.

Update at 6.16 pm: on first reading the Budget Report, I missed paragraph 1.38, which looks almost as significant as the £10 billion of cuts. This says “there will be a cap on the additional costs of Universal Credit up to £2.5 billion a year in the next spending review.”

This must mean one of two things:

  • If it looks as though the cost of the Universal Credit is going to break the cap there will have to be changes to the rates or to the design; or
  • UC will operate like a giant Social Fund, and when the money runs out people won’t be able to make a claim.

Either way this small paragraph could mean the destruction of Iain Duncan Smith’s dream. The UC, designed to provide a consistent guarantee that work always pays will no longer be able to do so. What will happen if more and more workers find themselves stuck on low-paying jobs? Or if unemployment rises? Or it becomes harder for disabled people or lone parents to get work?


4 Responses to The timebomb threatening the very poorest

  1. Ron Graves
    Mar 21st 2012, 5:00 pm

    Never lose sight of the 20% – about 600,000 – to be unceremoniously dumped in the switch from DLA to PIP to meet Cameron’s arbitrary and arguably insane target – insane because his deep-seated hatred of the sick and disabled cannot, in any light, be considered remotely rational.

    I believe Cameron is using the late Ivan as a benchmark against which we are all to be judged, and inevitably found wanting, just as I believe his hatred stems from the fact that we, the chronically sick and disabled, are alive and, from his perverted perspective, “thriving” on disability benefits.

    What Osborne’s excuse for going along with it is I have no idea other than his view of the sick and disabled is equally unhinged and perverted.

  2. Julia Anderson
    Mar 21st 2012, 11:21 pm

    I am one of many people affected by the changes to both the ESA and DLA benefits.
    Prior to becoming very ill three years ago I was a professional with a well paid job. My husband worked away from home and also earned a good wage. This all changed through no fault of our own. My husband had to give up his job away from home to care for me. I lost my job as I am unable to work after 30 years in employment.He now has taken a lower paid job close to home so that he can be available for me. My ESA has been stopped and after a 30 minute ATOS assessment my DLA has been removed. At the age of 50 I am unable to gt a pension, am unable to claim on my critically ill life insurance policy because I am not about to die . We are now in debt and risk losing our home, all because I had the misfortune to become ill under the Tory Government. I now have to ask my husband for money to buy incontinence pads. Is this a society that we value and want to live in? I think not. What is next voluntary euthanasia? I am very angry.

  3. Clare Fernyhough
    Mar 22nd 2012, 9:53 am

    In a couple of weeks, nearly one million households claiming either Working Tax Credit or Employment Support Allowance will see their benefits stopped altogether, on average losing over £3000 per year. Many more claimants receive much more than that. A low paid part time worker might see their income almost doubled via WTC and sometimes families receive more WTC than they do earned income; ESA can be worth up to around £8,500 p.a.

    These are not insignificant amounts either to the families concerned, and the money will instantly be removed from the economy. Partners of disabled people will be forced to look for other work to support themselves as well as not being available to look after their partner. Similarly families who face a massive drop in income that will cause untold misery. When I first claimed Family Credit and then WTC years ago, if I had lost that additional income I wouldn’t have afforded to feed my kids, it’s as simple as that.

    It is disappointing to note that Labour would do exactly the same. We poor people have no one willing to stand up and do the right thing any more; no one to speak for us.

    My health and the health of most chronically disabled people’s will not stand living in abject poverty, but that’s what we face.

    There is no hope left for us.

  4. Is Universal Credit a Universal con? « PCS Independent Left
    Mar 27th 2012, 8:27 am

    […] web posting can be found at: Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this […]