The Child Benefit proposal is a vote-winner
Posted on October 10, 2010The child benefit hoo-hah over the last few days is understandable. It’s controversial, communications within the Cabinet clearly weren’t as hot as they should have been and – inexplicably – it was launched before obvious potential loopholes had been spotted and sorted out. As a result particularly of those unsealed loopholes it has been pretty roundly panned, particularly in the Mail, Telegraph and Express.
However, I think the media have called this one wrong – this idea has the potential to be a big vote-winner. In the words of one lobby editor I spoke to on Monday, the papers swiftly resolved to “pour a bucket of shit over the idea”. As Guido points out, this may in part be because many of those writing our papers are on more than £44k, so are themselves going to lose out from the policy. Whatever the reason, there is now definitive evidence that their assumption that this was an unpopular idea is mistaken.
According to YouGov there is massive 83% support for the principle of the policy. Interestingly, on its implementation (where there have been some screw-ups) the only real concern comes from the 46% of people who want fully-fledged means testing introduced – a much more radical suggestion. Instead of the predicted popular backlash, the Government’s real challenge is that they aren’t going far enough for many people.
Tags: Benefits, Child Benefits, Coalition, Conservatives, Cuts, David Cameron, Guido Fawkes, public spending, Welfare, Westminster
Categories: Economics, Opinion, Politics, Public spending, Westminster
Hmmmm. Whilst the issue may have broad support among the large percentage of the electorate who earn less than 45k, I’ve yet to hear anyone defend the issue of 2 earners on 43k each retaining the benefit with any level of conviction (Theresa May seemed terrifed by Paxman).
Osborne came closest when he was interviewed by Jeff Randall. His response was along the lines of “by that logic, the 86k joint income household should therefore be taxed on that joint income level too..”
Perhaps that should be the first propsal in the spending review…
07.10.2010 13:57
OK so here’s why the couple on 43K issue is a red herring – two reasons in fact.
1/ why should the taxes of the less well off be used to subsidise the choice of someone with access to much greater income to swan around at home. Children start school at 4 years old, CB currently goes up to 16 so the vast majority of these stay-at-home mums are not staying at home to look after children.
2/ How many people fall into this £86K combined salary anyway – one at least will rapidly cross over into the higherrate tax band
07.10.2010 21:39
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Mark Wallace and Graham de Montrose, Graham de Montrose. Graham de Montrose said: even more, the media have given the Government an easy out any time they are accused of "favouring their own" with cuts http://bit.ly/di6OCa [...]
07.10.2010 14:01
The Left’s comical twisting-in-knots over this issue has been a joy to behold and it may also do them lasting electoral damage.
After being sidelined during the Blair/Brown years, I wonder how the Labour party’s core vote in Northern cities and Scotland will react to Yvette Cooper describing someone on £50k a year as having a “middle income”.
07.10.2010 14:46
George Osborne’s case was vindicated when he gave the example of a single woman on 50k per year who would be on higher rate tax, yet her neighbours on 42k each – 84k combined would not, and yet nobody ever complained about than anomaly.
I also agree about most of the whinging MSM being upset at the government removing their children’s pony club subs. Tough!
07.10.2010 14:55
Yes – but Trevor, the tax is marginal – i.e. only charged on the bit above £44k, whereas child benefit withdrawal is absolute. Maybe some maths lessons would help with your skintness?
07.10.2010 16:12
“The Child Benefit proposal is a vote-winner”
.
I disagree. It’s a tax increase by another name.
.
This coalition government are much the same as the last crowd – a bunch of tax hikers.
.
Bear in mind we also have the 50% tax rate plus other tax increases and stealth taxes in the pipeline.
.
Where are the tax breaks for new and small businesses ?
07.10.2010 16:47
There is the national insurance cut, the corporation tax cut, start-up grants for unemployed people to start their own businesses if they have a credible business plan,, employers tax cut for new recruits.
07.10.2010 19:38
You forgot to mention the rise in VAT from 17.5% to 20% from the 4 january 2011.
The Corporattion Tax reductions are areonly 1% per year.
Furthermore the red tape and admin costs for the new equality laws will also increase the burden on small business.
With regard to your point about the “start-up grants for unemployed people to start their own businesses if they have a credible business plan” – so far this scheme is threadbare in regard to any detail from Ian Duncan Smith and the proposed package of £2,000 in support and mentoring. This scheme looks very underfunded and £2,000 is going to go very far to help people set up a new business.
09.10.2010 11:39
It makes good sense to whack the well-off first. Lots more will be needed that affects lower earners, and even more that affects zero earners, but when the lazy envious media lefties whinge that the government’s targetting the ‘poor’ the government can say “Rubbish – the well-off were the first to feel the cuts.”
07.10.2010 17:00
The idea that people earning over £44K are going to be seriously affected by the loss of about £1K is ridiculous. I’m in that category because I work hard. For years the CB’s been coming in. I wasn’t going to turn it down, of course, especially when a lot of idle loafers who don’t even pay tax are getting it, but I never understood why I was being given it. Some sort of a reward for enriching the gene pool, perhaps? I didn’t depend on it, and no-one earning £44K+ does unless they’re over-spending. And if I miss it, I’ll do an extra few hour of work to make it up.
If losing CB is my contribution to sorting out Labour’s financial shambles, it’s fine by me – so long as those on welfare who could work but don’t take a big share of the cuts, too.
07.10.2010 17:24
“This coalition government are much the same as the last crowd – a bunch of tax hikers.” – Pat Guide.
Well what the dickens did you expect? That the Tories could magically solve a £150BN (yes £150 BILLION) budget deficit by waving a magic wand and all would be OK? £150BN is half the entire the govt spending budget 10 years ago. Its currently nearly a quarter of the bloated £650Bn we spend now.
One way or another that circle HAS to be squared. More income (higher taxes) or lower spending (cuts), or both. We have collectively had the good years, now come the lean ones. Face reality. EVERYONE is going to have to pay – Bankers, those on the dole, and everyone in between, Yummy Mummies included.
07.10.2010 18:40
I earn 20K pa. I do not claim benefits at all, because I do not need them. I have never claimed tax credits, because I can manage on my earned income. I believe that all welfare benefits should ONLY go to people in genuine need, and nobody else. I practice what I preach.
There is no excuse for people on more than double my income to be receiving welfare payments out of the taxes of those who are earning a lot less than them.
I guess the selfish spoiled , overpaid and out of touch benefit scroungers in the mainstream media will have to cancel the pony club memberships or the third annual holiday that they pay for out of my tax contributions.
GOOD!
07.10.2010 19:50
[...] Ps: see what I mean? [...]
07.10.2010 19:58
Unlikely to be a vote-winner because the MSM jpurnalists’ campaign against depriving their wives/themselves of a subsidy paid for by those poorer than themselves and the feminist lobby complaining that it is an attack on women (I have heard it suggested that some stay-at-home wives of HRTs need CB to buy food in case their husbands/partners gamble/drink away all their pay and leave the wife/partner destitute!!) will affect those who don’t understand or are never told what is really happening.
On the other hand it is obviously RIGHT.
07.10.2010 23:00
I sincerely hope that IDS will be including ALL benefits in the Universal Credit, so any household with an income in excess of around £45,000 ceases to get any state support. That would seem to fit with Coalition policy on Tax Credits and Osbornes £26,000 a year benefit cap when coupled with the £400/week Housing Benefit cap and is a reasonable estimate of the absolute maximum any household, even in expensive areas of London, might need were they to lose work and need support.
Best thing about this though was IDS in the media confirming in straight terms that where work was offered and refused, benefits would be cut.
08.10.2010 06:46
errrrrrr… so plans to tinker with the married allowance are off then !!!!!!!!
09.10.2010 21:33