Blog

The coalition's welfare cuts mean a dramatic rise in council tax for the poorest

Matthew Pennycook
Date: 31. January 2013 / Category: Tax and benefit system

This article originally appeared on the New Statesman

The decision to reduce the budget for council tax support by 10 per cent means low-income households face a tax increase of up to £600.

Accustomed to the inflated claims of successive governments, readers might be forgiven for rolling their eyes at the phrase "radical welfare reform". Yet for once the bold rhetoric might match reality. Council Tax Benefit, the most widely claimed benefit in the UK, which provides 5.9 million low-income families with help paying their council tax will soon be abolished. From 1 April, responsibility for council tax support will transfer from Whitehall to each of England’s 326 local authorities (and the Scottish and Welsh governments). Few have yet grasped the full implications.

To the reform’s cheerleaders, the change is ‘localism in action,’ and technically they’re right. But it’s localism of the most meagre and restricting kind. Councils must now provide council tax support but from a budget cut by 10 per cent cut. And they must also contend with centrally-set rules that mean that the amount of help pensioners receive is protected. This leaves them with a stark choice: either substantially increase the council tax bills of low income working families or find savings elsewhere to cover the funding shortfall.

Faced with these constraints and unable to make the required extra savings at a time of unprecedented financial challenge, three-quarters of English councils are set to introduce less generous systems of council tax support in just over two months’ time. Over a third are set to introduce schemes that severely reduce support. Only around a quarter of councils – along with both the Scottish and Welsh governments – feel they are able to absorb the funding shortfall and maintain current levels of support.

What does this mean for low income households? The answer is set out in a report released this morning from the Resolution Foundation. It shows that while the government talks up its decision to "freeze" council tax, millions of households – both in and out of work –in fact face swingeing increases.

Both the scale of the hit and the number of people likely to be affected are dramatic. Many of the 2.5 million out-of-work claimants who currently pay no council tax at all will now, often for the first time, face council tax bills of between £96 and £255 a year. Meanwhile, around 670,000 low-paid working families will see their council tax rise by anywhere up to 333 per cent – an increase of £577 for single working parents who look set to be the worst affected. Little wonder that the handful of prescient commentators alive to the possible implications of Council Tax Benefit reform have drawn parallels with the Community Charge, more commonly known as the poll tax.

It remains to be seen whether we see the emergence of the twenty-first century equivalent of anti-poll tax unions but councils are certainly braced for widespread non-payment. Many are setting aside large sums of money to compensate for unpaid bills while also preparing for more extensive use of bailiff powers and the courts.

Reform did not need to look like this. There was no intrinsic rationale to cutting funding at the same time as localising council tax support and experts have long warned of the dangers that a complex patchwork of local schemes poses to the government’s Universal Credit system. For savings of £410m it all seems unduly hazardous.

But the hazards for government are nothing compared to the very real suffering the changes will mean for many low income families. Already struggling to cope with stagnant wages, rising living costs, a series of cuts to the tax credits and – now – three years of below-inflation rises in support, a swingeing increase in council tax may mean the difference between staying afloat and going under.

As yet, there is no sign that ministers recognise the pain the reform is set to cause. Eric Pickles appears more concerned with the prospect of councils "cheating" their residents by planning across-the-board council tax rises of 1.99 per cent than with those soon to face increases of up to 333 per cent. Perhaps they expect a public inured to cuts to meekly accept the change. Yet there is all the difference in the world between stealth reductions in support over time and a large bill landing on your doormat. Revolt or not, the poor are unlikely to take this lying down. 

The Resolution Foundation's new report, No Clear Benefit, is published today

back to list

Share this

Filters

Archive

Tag Cloud

'Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings' 'earnings squeeze' 'squeeze' 'wage stagnation' #ows £10000 10p 2011 2012 50p 99% Affordable Housing Alex Hurrell America andrew haldane Anna Vignoles apprenticeships arrears ASHE assets Audit Australia autumn statement bank of england below minimum wage benefits borgen Boris Johnson borrowing budget budget 2011 Budget 2012 cameron care assistant centreforum child benefit child poverty childcar childcare CiF citizens UK coalition Commission Commission on Living Standards conservatives cost of living Cost of Motherhood costs council tax council tax benefit cpi CPIH daniel chandler datablog David Cameron david willetts de-coupling Debt debt forgivenes debt target degree dependency dilnot distribution Donald Hirsch earnings economy Ed Miliband education employment enforcement equity release felicity dennistoun female employment first-time buyers forbearance gap Gavin Kelly GDP gearing gender generation rent gingerbread giselle cory good life great stagnation gregg growth growth without gain Guardian HELP Committee higher rate higher rate tax relief hmrc holmes hourglass household debt household finances household income household spending Housing housing market huffington post IFS illegal in work income income inequality income tax increase indignados inequality inflation institutional investment interest rates international ippr Ipsos MORI James Plunkett jared bernstein jobs jobs gap joe coward John Van Reenen jrf Labour labour market lane kenworthy lee savage Left Foot Forward Lib Dems liberal democrats living living costs living standards living wage living wage foundation LMIs Low earners low middle earners low pay Low Pay Britain low pay commission low to middle income low wage low wage work machin marginal tax rate matt whittaker matthew hancock Matthew Whittaker mayhew measuring poverty median real wage median wage Mervyn King middle class minimum income standards minimum wage missing out mobility monetary policy Montague mortgage market mortgages netmums new statesman new statesman blog new year newby newham Nick Clegg niesr number paid below minimum wage Obama OBR occupy occupy wall street OECD older older workers ons pay pay and pensions pension Pensions pensions relief personal allowances personal finance pledge cards polarisation policy politicans politics poll poverty predistribution prescription charges prices priorities private rented sector private sector growth prospect public sector public services q2 growth recession recovery reduce credit card reform regional Rented Sector resolution foudnation Resolution Foundation retirement robin wales routine jobs rpi RPIJ rss savings Senate shereen hussein skills social social care social housing social mobility social mobility foundation society Sophia Parker southern cross Squeezed Britain Squeezed Middle standards state state pension age sutton trust tax tax and benefit changes tax and benefits Tax Benefits tax changes tax credits tax cuts tax relief The Spirit Level think tank think-tank threshold travel time trends uk underemployment unemployment unison Universal Credit university USA van reenen VAT Vidhya Alakeson voters voting wage wage growth wage inequality Wage squeeze 2013 wages welfare Welfare Debate welfare state White Paper women Work work incentives workers Working part time lower skilled job working poor young people Youth unemployment youth wages zero hours