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

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

Noise pollution puts nature at risk

 "I just want a bit of peace and quiet!" Let's get away from all the hustle and bustle; the sound of endless traffic on the roads, of the trains on the railway, and the planes in the sky; the incessant drone; the noise. We live in a world of man-made noise; screeching, bellowing, on-and-on in an unmelodious cacophony.  This constant background noise has now become a significant health hazard.   With average background levels of 60 decibels, those who live in cities are often exposed to noise over 85 decibels, enough to cause significant hearing loss over time.  It causes stress, high blood pressure, headache and loss of sleep and poor health and well-being.   In nature, noise has content and significance.  From the roar of the lion, the laughing of a hyena,  communication is essential for life; as the warning of danger, for bonding as a group or a pair, finding a mate, or for establishing a position in a hierarchy - chattering works.  Staying in touch is vital to working

Therapeutic animal stress

Interacting with animals is known to be therapeutic,  particularly in reducing stress.  But do we consider sufficiently the effects this may have on the animals involved?   We might assume that because it is calming for us, then it must be so for the therapeutic animals, but is this so?  New research suggests that it isn't always without stress for the animals involved.  Positive human-animal interaction relates to changes in physiological variables both in humans and other animals, including a reduction of subjective psychological stress (fear, anxiety) and an increase of oxytocin levels in the brain.  It also reduces the 'stress' hormone, cortisol. Indeed, these biological responses have measurable clinical benefits.  Oxytocin has long been implicated in maternal bonding, sexual behaviour and social affiliation behaviours and in promoting a sense of well-being .  So far, so good.  We humans often turn to animals for stress relief, companionship, and even therapy.  We kno