You just woke up £200 worse-off

Sam Thewlis
by Lovemoney Staff Sam Thewlis on 06 April 2011  |  Comments 16 comments

This week's changes to tax, national insurance and benefits will leave many worse-off, including single parent families, and reduce the incentive to work. Find out why and how the average person will be £200 worse off.

You just woke up £200 worse-off

This week sees the start of a shiny new tax year. Happy 2011/12 everyone! Unfortunately, for many UK taxpayers, the new tax year is far from happy, and instead brings an additional £200 tax bill, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS).

This may come as a surprise. After all, the Government is very proud of the fact that the personal allowance, the amount of income you can receive before paying any tax at all, is going up to £7,435. This will remove 500,000 taxpayers from income tax completely, according to IFS figures.

What they are perhaps less keen to mention is the fact that the simultaneous lowering of the 40% tax rate threshold down to £34,000 will actually make 750,000 more taxpayers liable to 40% tax.

Unsurprisingly, the wealthiest will contribute the most to refilling the Treasury coffers, as their tax changes will be exacerbated by the restriction on pension contributions.

But it is one earner families with children who will be worst affected, according to report.

The report actually concludes that the main winners from these reforms are non-working lone parents, being the only household type to gain on average.

It says low- to middle-income households without children will benefit.

Amazingly, the reforms “will slightly weaken the incentive to work at all”, according to the IFS.

Was this David Cameron’s aim when he introduced the reforms? Presumably not…

Aren’t changes normal at the start of a new tax year?

Yes, but the issue has been exacerbated this year because of the sheer number of different taxes and benefits affected. The biggest change, affecting the most people, will be the 1% increase in National Insurance Contributions, which is expected to bring in over £9bn alone.

The increase in the personal allowance is good news for lower earners, but higher earners will pay £1bn more through the lowering of the basic rate band and the changes affecting higher rate tax relief on pension contributions.

But the lowest paid do not escape scot free. By switching the method of inflation used to increase benefits from RPI to CPI (a lower measure), the Treasury are pocketing a cool £1.1bn, and cutting the winter fuel allowance and certain other benefits by 1.5% brings in more than the same amount again.

And it’s worse if you have children. The health in pregnancy grant, the baby element of Child Tax Credit and Child Trust Fund are all scrapped, and the Sure Start Maternity grant restricted. Child Benefit is frozen, and will soon become means-tested, and the maximum amount of childcare costs covered by Child Tax Credit falls 10% to 70%.

Overall, the net payday for the Treasury (after adjusting for the reduction in corporation tax, effective from 1 April) amounts to £5.35 billion, which works out at approximately £200 for each and every UK household.

Obviously, not every household will suffer by this much, some will be better off. But a significant amount will be worse off and given the substantial changes to benefits, it is likely to be those with children who are claiming benefits that are hit the hardest. Which seems a little harsh to me.

What’s worse, this £200 penalty is in addition to the effect of the VAT, fuel duty and other indirect tax increases in January this year, which will already cost the average household  an extra £480 this year.

With salaries already eroded by inflation, this is not great news for the average pocket.

What can we do about it?

Unfortunately, most of these changes are going to be hard to avoid- with the exception of consumption taxes like VAT, fuel duty and alcohol/cigarette levies, there is very little action we can take to avoid being hit by the changes.

An employee is not going to volunteer to take a pay cut just so he can pay less National Insurance, for example.

Similarly, someone on benefits is at the whim of the Government if they decide to change those benefits currently in receipt. And, as the IFS concludes, the changes actually widen the benefit gap, making it less worthwhile financially for those claiming benefits to go and seek work.

However, if we are on the downside of the equation, we can maximize our tax-free allowances by investing in ISAs and for those who will be denied a Child Trust Fund, you could consider setting up a Junior ISA instead.

Tax efficient investment schemes, such as the Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS) have been modified to allow greater amounts of tax relief, and pensions are still a tax-effective means of long-term investment for many people, whose contributions fall within the new, lower limits.

What do you think of the changes?

Let us know using the comments box below!

More: Find a competitive ISA | Government unveils Junior ISAs | Turn your kids into millionaires

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Twitter
General

Comments (16)

  • nosbort
    Love rating 124
    nosbort said

    For goodness sake, go and learn about statistics and mathematics. The 'average' of £200 is meaningless as it includes, precisely, nobody.

    Report on 06 April 2011  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • norcoastactivist
    Love rating 15
    norcoastactivist said

    Time to reduce benefits even more and make people stand on there own feet and take responsibility for themselves. If you can't afford kids, then don't have them. I was always on low pay so chose to have 1 child (I belive this was being responsible). The welfare state should be a safety net for people in desperate need, not a way of life.

    Report on 06 April 2011  |  Love thisLove  8 loves
  • yocoxy
    Love rating 132
    yocoxy said

    I'm confused by all the contradictions in this piece.. Take these four sentences:

    "But it is one earner families with children who will be WORST AFFECTED, according to report."

    "it is likely to be those with children who are claiming benefits that are HIT THE HARDEST"

    "The report actually concludes that the main winners from these reforms are non-working lone parents, being the ONLY household type to gain on average."

    "It says low- to middle-income households without children will benefit."

    Report on 06 April 2011  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • dh1948
    Love rating 11
    dh1948 said

    In other words, the government will no longer be spending vast amounts of money bribing young girls to avoid work by having lots of kids.

    If you want children, YOU pay for them, instead of sponging off the workers.

    Report on 06 April 2011  |  Love thisLove  8 loves
  • nosbort
    Love rating 124
    nosbort said

    And let's not forget that every public sector job is actually a drag on the real economy it takes 3 real jobs to pay for each public sector worker so it is time to get rid of the waste in local and national government.

    Report on 06 April 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Mike10613
    Love rating 599
    Mike10613 said

    Most people will spend less on luxuries and the people on the higher rate of tax spend a far higher percentage of their income on luxuries than someone on minimum wage. The low paid will do well out the budget because they are forced to be more frugal and the higher paid will afford less luxuries; that sounds fair. The perceived standard of living is how much you can afford to spend on luxuries and so there won't be too much difference; everyone will be slightly worse off. The higher paid with their tax increase and the lower paid with food and energy price hikes.

    Report on 06 April 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Jidder
    Love rating 4
    Jidder said

    The 40% Income Tax threshold has been reduced to £35k, not £34k as stated in this article. This is £35k after your personal allowance, of course.

    Thanks.

    Report on 06 April 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • wafu
    Love rating 12
    wafu said

    The whole Personal Tax thing is a joke. When will politicians work logically. Firstly, to start paying 40% on a salary that will not allow you to purchase an average value property in the UK is ludicrous. 3 x 42K comes out around 125K for a property and that is not feasable in most parts of the country. Secondly, what brainless idiot comes up with a system that you can claim child tax credits up to 45k but start paying the higher rate of tax at approx 42k.

    It seems to me that is all politicians do these days is dream up more ways to tax their citizens. They care very little for the working person - and that is true of any party.

    Report on 06 April 2011  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • wafu
    Love rating 12
    wafu said

    Well siad "norcoastactivist " except that it is questionable whether we should be penalising our own citizens when the government has just increased the Foreign Aidd bill from 8.4 Billion to 12.6 Billion. That is an increase of 33%. Surely we should be cutting it. The first thing that happens in a home when money gets tight is you stop spending and that includes the foreign aid. It should be reduced until the country has reduced its deficit

    Report on 06 April 2011  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • gecko2
    Love rating 0
    gecko2 said

    The 40% Income Tax threshold is now set at £35,001 to be exact.

    Report on 06 April 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Andymc
    Love rating 2
    Andymc said

    The country is in a mess and needs to take drastic action to fill the coffers. We should all pay a bit more to help out. Why should poeple who choose to have children (a lifestyle choice surely?) expect to be paid for the privilege: we should completely cut all child benefits after the second child. Parents chose to have kids so please stop moaning

    Report on 06 April 2011  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • prashatt
    Love rating 1
    prashatt said

    I would like to ask the government to cut unnecessary spending on Wars (Iraq and Afghanistan). Also, lowering the VAT back to 17.5% would really help all the citizens.

    The worst part is due to the rise in fuel prices, food is getting costlier day by day.

    Public transport is reliable and good only in London but still the cost for public transport is more than owning and driving a car (despite the car insurance rip-offs!)

    Time to learn from other better-off countries on "How-to manage Economy".

    The Banking sector brought the economy down and yet only the working class is punished.

    Its not fair on the govt. part, it seems neither Labour nor the Coalition parties care about the common man and the unemployed youngsters don't have a better future because of this mess.

    In each and every debate/political shows Coalition and Labour pass on the blame to each other, but nobody tries to fix the problem which will affect the UK economy at least for the next 10 years. The 2012 Olympics logo was designed for billions and Labour never thought about it !

    Income tax, NI, VAT and so many other ways to tax, but few ways to support the really needy people living below the poverty line.

    Report on 07 April 2011  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • tracyfoltan
    Love rating 2
    tracyfoltan said

    I absolutely agree with Andymc, people should prioritise and if they can't afford that second child DON'T have the child! Wait a few years, give your existing child/children a better education, clothing, food etc. It is such a blame game in the UK and people should take responsibility for their actions. London is far too overpopulated as it is.

    Report on 07 April 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • LittleToSay
    Love rating 7
    LittleToSay said

    Isn't the future of this nation in the hands of our children? So offering a little help to families is a good thing in my opinion, particularly as raising children takes an exceptional amount of time, effort & money.

    Personally I really dislike the way that the Conservatives came into power promising to be family-friendly, but all they've done is removed help for families.

    First Labour come in and deliberately raise the prices of family homes out of the reach of the average family (through excessively low interest-rates). Then the Conservatives make things even more difficult (while keeping interest-rates excessively low).

    I live on an estate with plenty of social housing though, and there still appears to be plenty of incentive for young girls to have kids as a "career choice" because it gets them a house and extra money. We do need to try to disincentivise this kind of behaviour, but I can't see that anything has been done so far.

    Report on 07 April 2011  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • nosbort
    Love rating 124
    nosbort said

    prashatt, if you think that the mess we are in is because of the bankers you are sadly deluded. The mess is of Gordon Brown's making for 'twas he who took 5.5 billion a year out of your pension fund and mine and set in train the disasters of house price increases by telling everyone that it didn't matter how much they paid for a house because mortgages were 'affordable'. He then spent every penny that the treasury had twice and borrowed so much money that, when all the cuts are finished, all that will have happened is that the debt will have stopped increasing. The deficit is just that, it is how much we are adding to the existing debt and once eliminated we still have to pay off the frightening pile of debt as well. Brown also hid masses of debt as 'PFI' which is the single most expensive way to borrow that ANY politician has ever come up with. Stop shouting at the bankers and remember who made this mess. BTW, before you even think it, NO I am not a banker, I run a small business.

    Report on 07 April 2011  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • onthecomputer
    Love rating 80
    onthecomputer said

    I think all benefits should be cut and hopefully that might just lessen the burden on the poor tax payer. By all means if you lose your job through redundancy or ill health then of course these people should be helped temporarily. If you have a long term sickness yes help those - I for one am all for that - helping those who really need it but to help people just because they have children - ridiculous. Child benefit began to help families in post war Britain.. the war was over long ago - time to stop it all together now that would be very fair - don't have children if you cannot afford them!

    How about a bonus for people who NEVER have children when they come to retire????

    Report on 25 May 2011  |  Love thisLove  1 love

Post a comment

Sign in or register to post a reply.

Our top deals

Credit card
company
Balance transfers rate and period Representative
APR
Apply
now

Barclaycard 26Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 26 months (3.5% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable)

Barclaycard 25Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 25 months (2.4% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee is reduced from 3.5% to 2.4% (T&Cs apply)

Halifax BT 25 Month MasterCard

0% for 25 months (2.5% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 19.0% PA (variable).
W3C  Thank you for using CGWEBLIV2