“The
typical family can expect to be £2,000 better off despite the proposed cuts in
tax credits.” That’s one of the assertions I saw recently in the Press in the
build-up to the House of Lords vote which overturned the Government’s plan to
reduce the level of tax credits paid to lower-paid workers and poorer families.
I’m
not sure how the politicians assess what a “typical
family” is. The Government has some praiseworthy aims - amongst them the
reduction both of the nation’s “deficit” and of the need for so many to be
dependent upon benefits, whether they be social payments or tax credits. The
increase in the National Minimum Wage is important in this respect - though I
find myself disturbed that the Government has tried to call it the “National
Living Wage” - effectively undercutting what others had independently assessed
to be the true amount necessary to ensure a basic quality of living.
But
the Maths don’t add up. It’s clear that at least half of poorer paid workers
and families on tax credits would find the cuts greater than any increase received
from the new minimum wage and higher tax threshold. And even if 80% stood to
benefit - as the Government first asserted - such a course must be questioned
if only for the effect on the 20% who would not benefit, because these would be
the poorest of all.
All
politicians these days sing the merits of “hard-working families.” But this
doesn’t help when there is no job to work hard at. It doesn’t help when hard
work is still rewarded only with the lowest possible wage. If you’re a
“typical” person in employment, you might expect to benefit. But can you easily
accept those benefits if their cost is real hardship for those who are poor?
Martin Jackson
from the November Parish Magazine - follow the links from the top of this blog page, or find it by clicking here
No comments:
Post a Comment