Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Poor hit twice as hard as rich by tax-and-benefit changes since Conservatives came to power, independent analysis finds

Verdict from respected Institute for Fiscal Studies provides election ammunition for Labour

Rob Merrick
Deputy Political Editor
Friday 22 November 2019 12:52 EST
Comments
General Election 2019: What you need to know

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

The poor have been hit almost twice as hard as the rich by tax-and-benefit changes since the Conservatives came to power, independent experts say, in powerful general election ammunition for Labour.

The worst-off 10 per cent of households have lost 7 per cent of their income since 2010, they say – rising to 18 per cent among those families with children.

In contrast, the highest-earning 10 per cent of the population have seen their incomes fall by only 4 per cent since the austerity programme was introduced.

The analysis, by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, also points out that pensioners have been “broadly protected” since 2010 – enjoying a small rise in their incomes.

The decade has been marked by above-inflation increases in the state pension – while working-age benefits have been cut sharply in real terms.

Income tax has also been cut, by raising the threshold at which it is paid, but – despite ministers’ rhetoric – those changes have mostly benefited workers higher up the income scale.

“Not everyone has reaped the gains or borne the burden of these reforms to the same extent,” said Pascale Bourquin, a research economist at the IFS.

“On average, those in the upper middle of the income distribution have benefited the most from personal tax and benefit reforms and the poorest households have experienced the biggest proportional loss.”

The verdict comes as Labour attempts to put poverty, including growing in-work poverty, at the heart of the election campaign, including by increasing housing benefit and axing the bedroom tax.

The Conservatives have finally ended the benefits freeze and appear to have shelved multi-billion pound plans for tax cuts for top-earners.

However, the tax plan blurted out by Boris Johnson this week – to hike the threshold for national insurance payments – would also benefit the better off, the IFS previously concluded.

At the height of austerity, both David Cameron and George Osborne repeatedly claimed “we are all in this together”, as they defended the policy.

But the IFS has found that, while the rich lost more than the poor in absolute terms – £2,200 per year, compared with £800 – the poor lost almost twice as much in per percentage terms.

The most-deprived with children lost far more in cash terms as well, it concluded – £3,800 over the decade.

The analysis covered changes to income tax, national insurance contributions, council tax, VAT, duties on fuel, alcohol and tobacco, state pension rates, benefits and tax credits.

It excluded most business taxes, such as corporation tax, as well as capital gains tax.

However, the IFS did conclude that the Coalition and Conservative changes “broadly served to strengthen work incentives, with workers in poorer households in particular keeping more of an extra pound of earnings”.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in