New Times,
New Thinking.

  1. Business
  2. Economics
20 October 2010

How the Spending Review hit the poorest hardest

The poorest 10 per cent suffered the greatest loss of income from the Chancellor’s decisions.

By George Eaton

NB: The green line on the graph is the one to watch.

Once again, George Osborne audaciously declared that those “with the most should pay the most”. But turn to page 98 of the Spending Review document and the picture becomes rather more complicated.

The Treasury graph below shows that, as a percentage of net income, the poorest 10 per cent pay more than every other group, with the exception of the richest 10 per cent. Osborne’s claim that those on the highest incomes will pay more, not just in cash terms (a less progressive measure), but also as a proportion of their income is therefore wrong.

If you strip out the pre-announced measures from the Budget (the black line), the graph shows that the poorest 10 per cent have actually lost the most from the Spending Review. The overall effect of the measures announced today is therefore clearly regressive.

Select and enter your email address Your weekly guide to the best writing on ideas, politics, books and culture every Saturday. The best way to sign up for The Saturday Read is via saturdayread.substack.com The New Statesman's quick and essential guide to the news and politics of the day. The best way to sign up for Morning Call is via morningcall.substack.com
Visit our privacy Policy for more information about our services, how Progressive Media Investments may use, process and share your personal data, including information on your rights in respect of your personal data and how you can unsubscribe from future marketing communications.
THANK YOU

Don’t forget, too, that the poorest, who have to carefully balance food and heating costs, can afford such losses far less than the richest.

Graph

One expects the Institute for Fiscal Studies will have a lot more to say about this over the next 48 hours.

Content from our partners
No health, no growth
Tackling cancer waiting times
Kickstarting growth: will complex health issues be ignored?