Skip to main content

Adam Smith Institute says tax credits best form of welfare.

Opposition and criticism of the governments proposed cuts to working tax credits is coming now from across the political spectrum.

It has been widely reported in the newspapers that he right-wing think tank, the Adam Smith Institute has criticised the governments proposed cuts in tax credits.  In a press release the ASI said:

"Working tax credits are the best form of welfare we have, and cutting them would be a huge mistake. The government has long claimed to want to make work pay for everyone, but cutting tax credits would disincentivise work and hurt those at the bottom of society.

"Contrary to the government’s claims, the National Living Wage will do little to help those affected by these cuts and, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility, it risks adding insult to injury by pricing tens of thousands of workers out of the labour market altogether.

There is little evidence that tax credits ‘subsidise’ employers, except to the extent that they make more people willing to work in the first place, creating a larger pool of workers. The politics of this looks dangerous, too: when it’s working families at the bottom of the income distribution that are being hit hardest, it’s hard to say that we are ‘all in this together’. We urge the Chancellor to rethink these cuts and find savings elsewhere instead."


The ASI further recommend that the best way of providing a 'living wage' would be to raise income tax and national insurance allowances to the level of the full time, full year, minimum wage. This the government could do immediately. 

The ASI also challenge the view that working tax credits 'subsidise' employers.  In a working paper published this week they claim It isn’t greedy employers, but greedy government, that is keeping people in in-work poverty; without tax on low earnings even workers on the 2015 minimum wage would earn a living wage. 

The main critisism of the government strategy on cuts in working tax credits is that it puts the cart before the horse.  Mr Cameron put the argument in his reply to the Leader of the Opposition at PMQs that the cuts a mitigated by the move to a living wage and increase in tax thresholds, but it assumes that those who gain on the roundabouts and also those that lose on the swings.  Figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies demonstrates that the poorest will lose most even taking account of other changes. 

Now the Adam Smith Institute argues that instead of imposing a mandatory National Living Wage, it would be  better to for the Chancellor to  remove taxes from the lowest paid, giving workers a similar level of post-tax income while forgoing the 60,000 higher unemployment and £1.5 billion lower GDP that the Office for Budget Responsibility predicts will accompany his plans. 

The ASI say that government should not have as its objective cuts in working tax credits, but to cut poverty. the title of their briefing is provocative  Abolish the poor.  

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As