£12 billion more benefit cuts? Where from?

Has George Osborne been listening to the Institute of Fiscal Studies?

After the Autumn Statement, the IFS said that, to keep the post-election cuts to public services at their current rate, the Chancellor would need to find another £12 billion, either from tax rises or welfare cuts.

Mr Osborne seems to have realised that, as the IFS warned and the OBR implied, cutting  public service spending to 1948 levels would see the state withdrawing from some service provision. This would almost certainly be very messy and would probably involve the financial collapse of some local authorities.

So he’s decided to keep public services cuts running at their current rate of around 2.3 percent per year. To do this, he needs to find £12 billion. He’s not planning to increase taxes, though. He’s going to squeeze the social security budget.

Or, at least, that’s what he said:

I can tell you today that on the Treasury’s current forecasts, £12 billion of further welfare cuts are needed in the first two years of next Parliament. That’s how to reduce the deficit without even faster cuts to government departments, or big tax rises on people.

There’s a problem here though. More than 50 percent of the benefits bill is pensions and pensioner benefits. The day before George’s speech, his boss pledged to increase pensions by at least 2.5 percent per year. That’s half the welfare bill off-limits before he’s even started.

The latest government forecasts, published just after Christmas, show the social security bill staying stubbornly high, even as the economy recovers.

Screen Shot 2014-01-06 at 17.25.38

There are two main reasons for this. Most obviously, there are more pensioners each year and their benefits are being protected or even increased. Secondly, the working poor will keep up the pressure on the tax credit and housing benefit budgets for much of the rest of this decade. Forecasts by the Resolution Foundation show Housing Benefit rising slightly in real terms over the next few years. A lot of workers simply can’t afford to rent, let alone buy.

Even if you exclude pensioner benefits, the figures still don’t show much scope for large cuts. The big lumps are Tax Credits and Housing Benefit. Given that most Tax Credits and close to a quarter of working-age Housing Benefits go to people in work, it’s difficult to see how significant welfare cuts could be made without hitting the working poor.

Screen Shot 2013-04-03 at 14.53.01

Source: IFS Green Budget

So, given the continuing upward pressure on the benefits bill, where will the Chancellor’s £12 billion come from? As the FT’s John McDermott notes, these cuts will be hard to find. Removing Housing Benefit for the under-25s may not save very much, especially if those with dependent children are protected. George Eaton in the New Statesman points out that may of the much-trumpeted welfare cuts haven’t yielded great savings so far:

For all the human misery they have caused, the household benefit cap is forecast to save just £110m a year by the DWP, while the bedroom tax will raise just £490m (and both, as analysts have warned, may end up costing more than they save by increasing homelessness and other social ills).

I find it hard to believe that the Chancellor can find £12 billion in social security cuts. That’s roughly one eighth of the working-age welfare bill. I’d be surprised if he can find even half that without causing serious distress to millions of people. It might look like a clever political move to hammer welfare claimants but when the cuts start to hit working people, as they inevitably will, public opinion might shift. For the government, news reports of hardworking families being evicted would be as bad as seeing councils and A&E departments collapsing.

But without the welfare savings, we’re back to this.

The 2015 spending/taxation/borrowing dilemma

Screen Shot 2013-12-19 at 07.42.16

For all the bluster, cutting welfare is unlikely to make all that much difference.

Update: Duncan Weldon reckons there might be another way out of this. Financial Repression!

Update 2: “George Osborne’s cuts are a squeeze too far,” says IFS director Paul Johnson.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to £12 billion more benefit cuts? Where from?

  1. Pingback: £12 billion more benefit cuts? Where from? - Rick - Member Blogs - HR Blogs - HR Space from Personnel Today and Xpert HR

  2. What effect would it have it we increased minimum wage so that employers paid their staff more and thus those staff claimed less benefit? I am thinking of the spread between boss/owner and staff is narrow we could keep the current rates, but where the CEO earns more than 5 times the basic of lowest paid staff the minimum wage should be a ‘living wage’ …

  3. Pingback: Should the DWP be disbanded? | arbitrary constant

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s