Poor families to bear brunt of coalition's austerity drive

[RamblingRosa]

Not exactly ground breaking news but it's always reassuring when some clever boffins confirm what you already thought!

IFS report in the Guardian today

"The IFS said the poorest 10% of families would lose over 5% of their income as a result of the budget compared with a loss of less than 1% for non-pensioner households without children in the richest 10% of households."

The government has of course dismissed it.

I am filled with a sense of dread and loathing about what will be announced in the autumn.

More interesting (we all knew it was a thoroughly regressive budget) is that they didn't perform the LEGALLY REQUIRED BY THE EQUALITIES ACT assessment of how it would affect different groups of people. They really wriggled about this on the Today programme, and the Fawcett Society are taking them to court over it.

Absolutely true. Three cheers for Fawcett!

I am gravely concerned that although many of us knew that this was the case and the Government are fully aware that this is the case, they are going to bulldose ahead with these cuts

I am expecting my second child in a matter of weeks and before planning for our second child my partner and I both sat down and discussed whether we could afford to have this child as we just about get by on both our salaries and the benefits that we recieved at the time (as we live in one of the most expensive areas in the country (unavoidable as family help out with some of childcare))

I am afraid that when these cuts come into place we will loose our house as most of my salary will go on childcare costs as I will be losing the childcare element of working tax credit for starters. I know that this is not the worst case scenario by any stretch but I know that the government did not take into account people outgoings ie childcare costs and location combined as I know many people in my situation who are going to have many of their benefits taken away overnight.

What I think is preposterous is that, as this report illustrates, there is barely any difference in real £ terms between the amounts different sectors of society are being affected by this budget.

Surely a progressive budget should mean one that is structured so that everyone is proportionally worse off - ie, at 1% the poorest 10% with £9000 pa income would lose £90 (not nice but more manageable than £400+) but the richest 10% at £80k+ would be losing upwards of £800 pa.

All Clegg's blustering faff about the restructuring of the benefits system readdressing the budget's flaws doesn't address the enormous underlying issue that proportionally, the massive weight of these cuts being borne in real terms by those with less ability to cope with them. This budget not only maintains social inequality, it will deepen it.

On top of this, the effects of cuts in the IFS report don't take account also of the fact that lower income families also rely more on public services - eg libraries, state schools, health services, Sure Start - which are also being slashed left right and centre. Those that can afford to educate their children privately, have private health care and can buy their own books won't be affected by these cuts anywhere near as much. Is there an economic model which can illustrate the compounding affect of this?

'I know that the government did not take into account people outgoings ie childcare costs and location combined'

Realistically they can't do that; nor should they, as your outgoings are your choice. They didn't look at my outgoings when they froze dh's pay for 2 years either.

I really wanted to know what Nick Clegg would say about it last night. LibDems should not be happy about this. But he said we missed the bigger picture . I think it's 'if after the budget poor people end up with even less money, they should get a job, or a better job, like me'. That's the Tories' view & NC has signed up well and truly. Chilling.

Scaryteacher, I don't agree that the govt should not take responsibility for childcare costs. If they want everyone to work they have to accept that for half of the working-age population, mostly women, that's going to mean a childcare issue. And let's not kid ourselves that school fulfils that role, as it leaves 16 weeks uncovered, not to mention wraparound care, all of which has to be paid for.

We can't use the argument that you shouldn't have children unless you can afford them as that would mean society would implode within a few generations. Capitalist society always relies on the poor having more children than the rich.

Ignoring childcare is a political form of sexism IMO. Removing help to pay for it means that WOMEN will be forced out of jobs. Very few men will suffer this fate, those that do are the exception proving the rule.

In the case of working single parents, removing subsidised childcare will result in many, myself included, having to give up work and become reliant on benefits. How does that benefit anybody?

Agree with so many points on this thread.

Mark Hoban, though, is surely missing a career in stand-up comedy:

"The IFS have it wrong because they haven't taken into account the fact that poor people can save money by moving into cheaper accommodation - my local Tesco, for example, will give you a box if you ask."

Depressing news.

I think as a nation we need to express our disgust at all these cuts. It is Ok for the MP's on their gravy train with millionaire lifestyles. They should try living on a normal working wage. Clegg speaks of social mobility - this will never happen if the poorest families are deprived even more than they are now. They need hope and aspiration that there is better.

Optimist, cynically speaking it's strategically better, in a time when jobs are short, to force women to give up work through cutting child care. SAHMs can't claim job-seekers allowance because they can't seek a job, and voila! Unemployment figures aren't as bad as they might have otherwise been. Plus money is saved in two areas; childcare and JSA.