Fairness and the welfare bill

 

Today's row over benefits was optional: the government, by all accounts, did not need to have a parliamentary vote on the decision to raise most benefits by only 1% a year between now and 2015. But if you want to squeeze public spending as much as the government does, most economists would say that debates about welfare are not optional at all.

The debate has been portrayed as an argument over "skivers versus strivers". But others might say it was a debate about the nature of the welfare state.

The welfare budget is 30% of government spending; if you're trying to squeeze public spending, it's inevitable that you will end up trying to squeeze welfare.

And if you've ruled out most of the cuts which would directly affect retired households, as David Cameron did, during the 2010 election, there are only two potential targets for welfare cuts left: working age households that work, and those that don't.

The policy being debated today will affect both, though workless households will lose most. The policy will also leave them relatively more exposed to inflationary shocks.

According to the IFS, about 9.5 million households will be affected by the new policy on uprating - or about half of the working age households in Britain. About seven million of these "losers" will contain someone in work, and could lose, on average, around £165 a year by 2015-16.

But that hides a very wide variation. The loss for about three million of those working households will be more like £75 a year and will come only from the real cut in the value of child benefit. The roughly 2.5 million non-working households who also lose out will be worse affected, as a general rule: their average loss will be about £215 a year.

Is this fair? As ever, it depends on your definition of fairness. It might also depend partly on how you view the role of the benefit system.

When benefits started, they were thought of as insurance, to protect you from certain big events in life for which you might or might not be well prepared. Some, like retirement, were entirely predictable. Others, like unemployment, were not. The contributory principle said you got more or less what you paid in, if and when these life-changing events occurred.

Two things have happened since then: the first is that the benefit system has become much less contributory, meaning that benefits are increasingly tied, not to your contribution, but to your situation. The second, only partly related to the first, is that the system has come to involve a much larger share of working age households.

The latest figures from the ONS show that, on average, the bottom 60% of UK households by income get more out of the system in benefits, tax credits and public services than they put back in the form of taxes in 2010-11.

Obviously, a significant chunk of those households are retired people, who pay less tax. If you exclude them from the calculation, the bottom 40% are clear winners, and the 20% in the middle pay almost exactly what they get back.

In 2010-11, the average gross (before tax) income at this part of the income distribution, was £33,186. If you subtract direct and indirect taxes from that income, then add back what families get from the state in cash and in-kind benefits, the ONS reckons you get a "final income", net of taxes and benefits, of £32,305 - just slightly less than they earned in the first place.

It is these kinds of statistics that prompt critics, such as the Reform think-tank, to talk about the "money-go-round" of welfare. Their point is that the middle classes may get more now from the state than they got 20 years ago, but they have usually had to shell out more taxes to pay for those extra benefits.

Gordon Brown reckoned that the more you gave the middle classes in tax credits and other benefits, the more they will support the welfare system as a whole. Some of the welfare cuts being implemented by the coalition are putting that belief to the test. But the change in uprating for the next few years is a reform which asks most working age households to contribute, regardless of circumstance.

If you think fairness is about treating different households equally, then you will think it's fair. If you think, rather, that fairness means "asking those with the broadest shoulders to carry the heaviest burden", then you might not think this particular change is fair. But ministers are right to point out that households dependent on benefits have seen faster growth in their incomes recently than many in work.

If the forecasters are right in their predictions for inflation over the next few years, today's uprating move will mean that the benefits fall by 4% in real terms between 2013 and 2015. As it happens, average weekly earnings have fallen by almost exactly that amount, in real terms, since the coalition came to power (see my last blog), while benefits have consistently been uprated in line with inflation.

Iain Duncan Smith says the gap is even wider if you go back five years: people on out of work benefits have seen their incomes rise by 20% over that period, while average earnings have risen by 12%.

As I pointed out a while ago, one consequence of uprating benefits with inflation at a time of flat or falling real wages has been to help narrow the gap between rich and poor. It is one big reason why 2011 saw the largest one-year decline in income inequality in a generation.

This cut in the real value of benefits between 2013 and 2015 may undo some of that. But probably a better objection to this policy is that it leaves the poorest households very exposed to inflationary shocks.

We don't actually know what inflation will be over the next few years. The majority of forecasters expect it to continue to be weak - because they don't think there's much chance of a rapid economic recovery which pushes up domestic prices or wages, and because they think the new sources of energy coming on stream in the US and elsewhere will help keep a lid on the world price of oil and gas.

If those forecasts are right, inflation in the UK will be lower in the next few years than it has been since 2009, and the real value of benefits will fall by not much more than 1% a year, between now and 2015, as a result of this policy.

But quite a lot of economists think that, sooner or later, the hundreds of billions that the Bank of England and other central banks have been pumping into the global economy will come back to bite us, in the form of runaway inflation. That is unlikely to happen right away, but others think there could be another surge in global commodity prices this year, which the Bank of England will not able to prevent filtering into inflation.

If either or both of those things happens, this policy would mean that households who depend on benefits for all or most of their income could see their real incomes fall by a lot more than 4% between now and the next election. But right now, ministers would probably say that runaway inflation was not their number one concern.

 
Stephanie Flanders, Economics editor Article written by Stephanie Flanders Stephanie Flanders Former economics editor

So it's goodbye from me

After 11 years at the BBC, I'm leaving for a new role in the City.

Read full article

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • Comment number 36.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 35.

    I can't remember the last time I bought a pint of milk in percentages. I usually buy it in pence. An average jobseeker on £70 per week will get a rise of 70 pence, just about enough for a pint of milk. But when you factor in inflation, it's actually a loss. And average earners are complaining and throwing their toys out of the pram, well, you got your way today. Well done, you make me sick.

  • rate this
    +6

    Comment number 34.

    So Stephanie, define your "skivers" and "strivers".
    This is about working age benefits, benefits that people can claim while "striving". Currently in part-time (12 hours pw) at just over minimum wage, I have asked about increasing my hours. The answer was "No". The rest of my week is spent looking for other paid work AND doing 2 voluntary jobs.
    Now, am I a "skiver" or a "striver"?

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 33.

    Stephnie,

    Your £165 number above is mistaken as it would mean that the average benefit for those 40% of working families on the lowest income would be £16,500 p.

    If the average cut for a non working family is £215 then the averge benefit for a non working family is £21,500. This group feels the cut hardest because it is 1% of their total income and not 1% of a bit of their income.

  • rate this
    -3

    Comment number 32.

    jfgeqktg#24
    q4#[ g[p[4y][qkqg4,,3[q-0yjq4
    435mggn[0 cqojivqqbk;qhqh
    eqh][hko4gi l510951iy

  • rate this
    -6

    Comment number 31.

    Workless households will not get an inflationary shock, its the goverment that might get the shock. Are they guarenteeing a 1% rise in benefits if, as i predict inflation will fall below zero by September this year. Not even the bookies will take my bet!

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 30.

    "With regard to ‘fairness’, David Miliband’s analogy of the ‘ladder’ ..."

    With regard to fairness, David Miliband has nothing to say. He just took £150,000 for two weeks work at a football club.

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 29.

    Once again someone is missing the point. A 1% rise for someone receiving £70 per week is a lot less than a 1% rise for someone earning £400 per week. But hey, keep up the prejudice and misleading statistics.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 28.

    Nice analysis.
    Our problem as always that we don't work together to solve a problem: too many vested interests from rich and poor, and too many politicians, not leaders.

    Where do you draw the line? Statistically if we all got paid the same, we'd all get 33K or so. 50% of us would be pleased 50% of us annoyed. Is this fair?

    No politics, just thinking of the consequences of our desires.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 27.

    I am delighted that this measure has been approved in the Commons. It is nice to see some fairness being reintroduced into our tax affairs.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 26.

    So sharing the pain means tax cuts for the rich, subsidies to private schools via their charitable status, paid for by punishing the low paid. What about hitting the bankers who got us into this mess? Oh forgot, they own the government.

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 25.

    Too many uneducated ignorant people are having too many children and expecting the tax payer to pay for them.
    If you can't afford children don't have them.
    Get pregnant, get a Council house, get benefits and then have more children.
    Alan

  • rate this
    +9

    Comment number 24.

    Can someone help me on this. How did the entire UK state sector (its employees, its pensioners, its welfare recipients) come to think inflation-linked hikes in incomes, pensions and benefits were an automatic right?

    No such rights exist in the private sector. But the state believes higher prices for Saudi oil or Canadian wheat are excuses for grabbing more UK private sector tax. Why is this?

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 23.

    zero % interest rates, QE - and inflation will be low? really?
    Why won't someone admit that current policy is all about reducing the debt burden through inflation. Just wait until BoE target is changed to 'nominal gdp growth'.
    As for the welfare cuts - inevitable. But the big mistake is to not means test pensioner benefits - all because of a manifesto promise which should never have been made.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 22.

    I have listened to both arguments, from the ConDem side and from Labour.

    Labour don't want the middle class earners to suffer.
    ConDems don't want the claimants rates going up by as much as inflation.

    All it proves is that neither the ConDems OR Labour have a clue what is happening outside the Westminster bubble.

    We need a different Government - and Opposition!

  • rate this
    +13

    Comment number 21.

    Stephanie, I watched your piece on the 6pm News. By the time you repeat it at 10pm, perhaps you should include a mention of the impact of the income tax personal allowance rises on those working people who will lose through this change to their benefits. Just, you know, to give the complete picture.
    Oh, and take a look at Guido Fawkes to see who started the "workers not shirkers" namecalling!

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 20.

    The 5% tax cut was targeted towards millionaire and aspiring company Directors - there are very few of them, so this statement is pointless as the 50% tax rate didn't raise anything substantial in tax - why can't people realise this basic fact and stop criticising the more successful, jealousy is such a poor human trait and fuels and cements the Tory army and voters.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 19.

    Typical devise tory rhetoric amplified by the Beebs employees,
    how many "strivers" are there among the unemployed?
    I am well aware of some "skivers" within work!, divide and cause even more bad will, well done.
    As for folk past retirement age being free from cuts, Cameron took £50.00 p.a. off the poorest along with a cut in Pension Credit soon after taking office.
    This piece is very poor.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 18.

    All the while the highest paid get a 5% tax cut, those on low incomes get a cut in income. Is this eradicating the deficit? This govt has cut spending 0.5% of GDP last year. This year it plans to cut 1.5% of GDP. Capitalism needs growth if it is to survive - it needs you to spend - not pay off debts. As an anarchist-communist I like this govt. It is doing it's best to bring down capitalism! Irony?

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 17.

    If the government increased the national minimum wage well above inflation year on year that would reduce the burden of tax credits placed on the welfare system. This would then stop the government in effect subsidizing huge payouts to the bosses of companies who manipulate the welfare system for profit and therefore bonus's.

 

Page 14 of 15

 

Features

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.