New analysis from Essex University and the LSE analyses the impact of benefit and direct tax changes since the election in detail. This shows that the poorest income groups lost the biggest share of their incomes on average, and those in the bottom half of incomes lost overall.
In contrast those in the top half of incomes gained from direct tax cuts, with the exception of most of the top 5 per cent – although within this 5 percent group those at the very top gained, because of the cut in the top rate of income tax.
The analysis challenges the idea that those with incomes in the top tenth have lost as great a share of their incomes as those with the lowest incomes
The full paper can be downloaded here (pdf)
The research, by Paola De Agostini, John Hills and Holly Sutherland suggests that who has gained or lost most as a result of the Coalition’s policy changes depends critically on when reforms are measured from.
Some groups were clear losers on average – including lone parent families, large families, children, and middle-aged people (at the age when many are parents), while others were gainers, including two-earner couples, and those in their 50s and early 60s.
at the Institute for Social and
Economic Research (ISER) at the University of Essex commented: “It is striking
how seemingly technical issues or minor differences in assumptions like which
tax system is taken as the starting point for Coalition reforms, or whether to
assume 100% take-up of benefits have very big implications for what we conclude
about whether the rich or the poor were harder hit.”
Prof Hills, Director of the Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion at LSE, commented: “What is most remarkable about these results is that the overall effect of direct tax and benefit changes under the Coalition have not contributed to cutting the deficit. The savings from benefit reforms have been offset by the cost of raising the tax-free income tax allowance. But those with incomes in the bottom half have lost more on average from benefit and tax credit changes than they have gained from the higher tax allowance.”
Paola De Agostini is Senior Research Officer at the Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER) at the University of Essex.
is Professor of Social Policy and Director of the
Centre for Analysis of
Social Exclusion (CASE)
at the London School of Economics.
Holly Sutherland is Research Professor and Director of EUROMOD at the Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER) at the University of Essex.
The paper was prepared as part of CASE’s Social Policy in a Cold Climate programme, which is funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Nuffield Foundation, and with London-specific analysis funded by the Trust for London. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the funders. The analysis uses the tax-benefit model, EUROMOD, based at the University of Essex.
Markerplace's Sally Herships interviewed Professor Andrea Prat from Columbia University, who is one of the principal investigator of STICERD's Executive Time Use Project. In the article from November 10th, Prat points out that CEOs spend most of their days in meetings. And, he notes, most of the meetings are with employees inside the company. Contrary to common belief, he says that the more time a CEO spends in meetings with his or her employees, the better the company does.
The Executive Time Use Project is an international data collection effort to analyze how corporate leaders in the US, Europe and Asia organiser their working time. It generates reports that help policy makers understand the behaviour and the priorities of top corporate leaders.