Letter: Impact of taxing child benefit
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.Sir: 'Child benefits may be taxed' (20 July) reports correctly the words I used, but when I said I would not necessarily be against the taxing of child benefit, provided the money so raised was pumped back into the system, I meant the child benefit system, not the social security system in general.
To tax child benefit and use the revenue raised to make an increase in child benefit over and above its annual increase would, in effect, redistribute resources from richer parents (those paying 40 per cent tax) to other parents, and it would redistribute from taxpaying parents to the mother, who invariably picks up the child benefit. The extent of this redistribution would need to be worked out carefully to see whether the impact of taxing child benefit was really worth the effort.
What I am totally opposed to is the taxing of child benefit and for the revenue to be allocated to tax cuts. This would result in the redistribution from families with children to taxpayers - most of whom are not currently responsible for looking after children. Similarly, to use the proceeds from taxing child benefit to meet the Government's obligation to increase annually most social security benefits in line with prices, would result generally in a transfer from families to single people and childless couples on benefit.
That the Government is contemplating these options shows the importance of the Labour Party becoming proactive under John Smith. It will be a change of some magnitude to see the Government having to respond to Labour's agenda. This could prove a new, crucial phase in British politics, but it depends on a willingness for Labour to think beyond its traditional intellectual tramlines. Failure to do so will mean yet another five years - on top of the period since 1979 - when Labour is content to cry foul at every Government move and then grudgingly accept the changes after yet another pasting at the hands of the electorate.
Yours faithfully,
FRANK FIELD
MP for Birkenhead (Lab)
House of Commons
London, SW1
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments