Autumn statement: who pays most, rich or poor?
The claim
“Those with the most should contribute the most and they will.”
George Osborne, chancellor, House of Commons, 5 December 2012
The background
Following on from the bleak news that austerity Britain is here for longer than the government had planned for, the Chancellor tried to soften the blow by saying that the rich were going to have to do their bit to help get us out of it.
Rich pensioners, he said, were also going to suffer.
“We’re going to raise more money from the rich,” he told MPs. “The richest will pay a greater share of income tax revenues in every single year of this coalition government than in any one of the last 13 years of the last Labour government.”
At the same time, he announced changes to benefits and welfare payments for millions of claimants.
So who is going to pay more, FactCheck asks?
The analysis
We won’t rehearse all the changes announced by Mr Osborne today, but in a nutshell, the key announcements related to income were:
- a 1 per cent cap on increases of most working age benefits and tax credits for three years from April 2013, plus housing benefit and Universal Credit. Child benefit will rise by one per cent for two years from April 2014 (the Treasury says the entirety of benefits changes will earn £3.2bn by 2017-18)
- increasing the personal allowance by £235 in April 2013, taking it to £9440
- reducing the annual pension allowance from £50,000 to £40,000 for 2014-15 (the Treasury hopes this will bring in £2.15bn by 2017-18)
- raising the threshold for paying the top 40 per cent of income tax by one per cent from 2014 (the Treasury says this will bring in £3.36bn by 2017-18)
In effect the “one per cent cap on increases on benefits” actually amounts to a real-terms squeeze for three years.
Last month, the Governor of the Bank of England said that CPI inflation in October was 2.7 per cent. Which means that benefits won’t rise at the same rate of inflation, meaning it amounts, in practical terms, to a cut.
Which wouldn’t inevitably mean that the poor paid more than the rich. It’s just that even the Treasury thinks this might end up being the case.
Since 2010, as the government announced each budget, it published an “impact assessment” on households.
It takes into account the cumulative impact of the changes in taxes, tax credit and benefit changes on household incomes.
According to the latest assessment, which considers today’s changes as well as previous ones announced by the government, it shows that the top tenth of earners will lose around 2.1 per cent of their income after tax.
The top tenth [the penultimate bar in the chart above] are those who earn, after tax:
one adult – £32,900; an adult with one child – £42,800; two adults with no children – £49,400; two adults with a child – £59,300.
For this lot, direct taxes, in this case changes to pension tax relief, will account for around half of the cut.
Indirect taxes – such as VAT and duties – will eat away at a slightly smaller sum, and the changes to tax credits, namely removing child benefit, will take away less still as a proportion of their income.
The bottom tenth hasn’t been defined as carefully as the others, but the one above it – the second tenth – is. The second tenth [represented by the second bar in the chart above] includes earnings, after tax, of: one adult – £9,600; an adult and a child – £12,500; two adults – £14,300; or two adults with a child – £17,300 after tax.
Self-evidently, the bottom tenth earn less than that. And for them, the overall effect will be a decline in income of around 1.7 per cent.
That is because although the poorest people are expected to earn around 1.1 per cent more from the changes to income tax, that’s mitigated by the other changes. The amount they’re going to lose from the changes to welfare and tax credits alone will cut their net income by around 1.8 per cent. And the amount they pay in indirect taxes is just over 1.1 per cent.
Where does that leave us? It means that while the people who earn the most will also pay the most as a percentage of their income, they’re closely followed by the very poorest people.
The second tenth, the group who earn just more than the bottom decile, can expect a cut of 1.5 per cent in their income; the third decile will get a cut of 1.2 per cent; the fourth will see their net incomes fall by 0.7 per cent.
Continuing on, it’s actually those who earn more who will gain from the changes: two adults and a child earning anything between £33,600 to £46,300 after tax are likely to gain by between 0.05 per cent to around 0.25 per cent.
All of this is, of course, only taking into account how much people will earn, or lose, after tax.
What it doesn’t tell us is how personal assets may affect things, or how a family or household’s use of public services may affect things.
For example, it’s fair to assume that higher earners are more likely to send their children to private schools, or use private healthcare – while contributing far greater amounts (in cash terms) to the public purse to fund state schools and the NHS.
Lower earners are much more likely to use public services. The Trades Union Congress has done research into this, and they say that public spending cuts amount to a decline in income of nearly 32 per cent for the poorest income group, without taking income earned through benefits into account.
In addition, it’s worth remembering that the closer a family is to the breadline, the harsher any pay cut will seem.
We asked the Treasury what their position is. A spokeswoman directed us towards another chart which showed that in cash terms, rich people lost more than the poorest.
But that’s no great surprise.
She also directed us towards this chart which shows how tax contributions (shown in pale green) increase as net income rises :
We said we were happy to, only its sources were more vague and it had split people up into fifths, not tenths, so we couldn’t really use it to compare it to what we’d used before.
The verdict
We’re going to have to leave the FactCheckometre on the middle needle for this one.
The difficulty is that Mr Osborne hasn’t drawn any boundaries around who he considers to be those “with the most”.
If he stops at the top 10 per cent of earners, then yes, they will pay the most.
But the poorest 10 per cent of earners will be the next biggest losers as a result of today’s Autumn Statement.
So while he’s taking the most from the very rich, he hasn’t done the poor any great favours either.
By Fariha Karim



There are 15 comments on this post
Cathy,
Georgie Boy simply lied in his teeth.
It’s what people like him do.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
What the Treasury covieniently will not face is the abject hell all the Pensioners like me are suffering
I have no option but to exist on HALF state pension because i cared for ageing parents and the interest from savings
0.5% Bank Rate , QE , Funding for Lending and lowering the reserves limits on Banks has now plumeted Interest rates down from 6% to 2 % even in the best rate accounts hence my income has dropped by 2/3rds
Theres no benefits open to me whatever , i no longer even fall into standard personal allowance bracket let alone Age Allowance
My income has dropped from 14K to 7K and 2.5% increase next April on my pittance simply will not begin to cover the increase in food prices
Meanwhile the country squanders billions on Overseas Aid to despots in Africa , gives free NHS care to foreigners and gives illegal immigrants far more in benefits that i can get along with more millions in Legal Aid
My family have lived here since 1600 and i have done the right thing and cared for parents and saved yet i now have a stark choice of food or hypothermia
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I predicted long ago not only of the growing homeless but single pensioners too in our country due to fuel costs and needs. The cost of home maintenance to live comfortable.
It’s obvious this coalition ignores the growing homeless in London, and local councils follow suit so how does the rest of country cope?
Lets be honest here a lifetime of Greed from bankers, the hierarchy, businesses not just satisfied with profits, years of profiteering and inefficient Incompetence coupled with having to U Turn on many mistakes.
Why are we still losing to overseas aid that is stolen and squandered between governments
without any redress? ——-Barbara.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
It was the squeezed middle, now it is the top and bottom. So now everyone should be hit. We are all in this together ?????
Like or Dislike:
0
0
i was very dismayed in your report yesterday when a question from a man in manchester concerning the bedroom tax and how it will effectively make him homeless was glossed over by government rhetoric machine danny alexander. since there are very few concessions with this tax, and the support for the disabled, sick and financially disadvantaged is very limited, discretionary and temporary, the reality of is that the majority of tenants will face either great financial difficulty or effective eviction. the governments claim that the tax will “encourage mobility” within the social housing sector, and “strengthen work incentives” are completely outrageous, considering that reports state that around 85% of those who will be forced to move will not have a suitable property to move into, nor will there be enough jobs for those who are able to work to go to. the harsh reality is that for most tenants, the choice will be financial difficulty and debt or effective eviction.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I find chart 1 H impossible to understand!
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I didn’t notice any proposal to end the special privileges and statutory exemptions in relation to Income Tax & National Insurance enjoyed by Members of Parliament and Government Ministers.
Clearly, we’re not all in the same boat. Statutory Tax Avoidance for all, unless you’re a Plebian?
Like or Dislike:
0
0
not since the goverment 0f 1945 has any politition tory lib or lab given a toss
Like or Dislike:
0
0
It seems like the shrewdest move fiscally has been to reduce the annual pension allowance from £50 to £40K. Average UK salary earnings are £26,500.
In theory, with an aging population, this element of tax take should increase, if not it is a sign of the scale of the erosion of pension incomes that has resulted over the last decade from the ending of final salary schemes and pension fund contribution holidays taken in the early 1990s.
On the face of it, a net benefit to HM Treasury of £2,15bn by 2017/8 sounds quite low. It sounds as if further scope to reduce the allowance exists.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Cathy — for a journalist with a financial background who runs a FactCheck blog, why did you agree to present that bit on the Monti resignation just now (Monday eve) sending stocks plunging, when in fact all the major European markets had a quiet day and closed gently up. Saying that the FTSE closed down 0.3% at lunchtime was just weird. Your show goes out at 7pm, and the market had recovered and closed up. Facts and good story and getting in the way spring to mind. Not what we expect from C4 News.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
With the programme tonight with a homeless parliament there is little argument that the poor are paying in suffering for the austerity measures that hit the most vulnerable in our society far more and far harder than anyone economically ‘higher up’.
Mr Bowles reply that the problem is not the cuts in Housing Benefit, but a historical lackof building houses is only partially true, but wholely dismissive of the thousands that are now homeless or facing homelessness. Currently the most immediate push and barrier to housing is the recent changes in provision to the most vulnerable. The figures, 66% increase in one age group in the capital speaks volumes about this fact.
The second and perhap most disturbing reply from Mr Bowles was not a reply to the questioners greif of reducing housing provisions, but to focus on the large deficit that the incoming government inherited. Again thrusting aside the real social consequences of policies that are being applied with no true understanding of the real suffering they cause, or the most vulnerable groups they hit. As if a large deficit is some excuse for the abhorent target on our welfare system, which was developed to protect our most…
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Why does cathy Newman continue to waffle about bus passes .?
How should we decide WHO gets bus passes. ?…
Do we all fill in forms outlining our income and assets?.
It is simply Impractical to separate those entitled to receive free
Bus passes and those who are too wealthy to receive them
TELL. Me how you would operate a system And what it would cost.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Why not make owners of ‘holiday’ and ‘weekend’ homes that are vacant for 51 weeks of the year rent them out to the homeless?
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Because many of the long term and young homeless have issues which have lead to unsettled accommodation, often lacking the skills to successfully manage and care for their accommodation.
If a landlord is made to let their business investment property to many of our current homeless, the government would also be expected to pay for the damage, clean up an other costs which would result from many tenancies, making the whole proposal completely unviable.
However your point highlights the poor response of the minister with regards to availability of housing. This is in fact partially true, with local planning policies effectively preventing low cost accommodation and alternative low impact dwellings of a temporary (3 year renewable) nature. Such as caravan dwelling, which many go into of choice due to the low cost nature, but then move on from.
Landlords become rich. The poor become poorer. Have you ever seen a fair rents officer? How can landlords be made to reduce their rents? Will planning ever allow low cost temporary but all year round accommodations?
Like or Dislike:
0
0