tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/family-benefits-5048/articlesFamily benefits – The Conversation2021-06-15T12:23:36Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1605142021-06-15T12:23:36Z2021-06-15T12:23:36ZFriends are saying ‘I do’ – but might not understand the legal risks of their platonic marriages<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/406152/original/file-20210614-77865-zda7im.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=263%2C6%2C3914%2C2661&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Since there’s no romantic relationship, judges are likely to default to ruling that platonic marriages are an attempt to game the system.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/wedding-cake-with-statuettes-of-two-women-is-seen-during-news-photo/81102220?adppopup=true">Gabriel Bouys/AFP via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>When a couple decides to tie the knot, they’ll often say they’re marrying their best friend. </p>
<p>But what if two actual best friends – no sex or even romantic feelings involved – just decided to get married? </p>
<p>Friends, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/01/fashion/weddings/from-best-friends-to-platonic-spouses.html">The New York Times reported</a> in 2021, are starting to “marry in a platonic fashion, swearing never to leave each other for better or for worse.” </p>
<p>These “nonconjugal couples” – mutually supportive relationships of friends or relatives that lack a sexual component – are powerfully challenging dominant social and legal norms around what constitutes family.</p>
<p>I’ve recently written about how these <a href="https://www.bloomsburyprofessional.com/uk/legal-recognition-of-non-conjugal-families-9781509939954/">nontraditional couples could one day gain legal recognition</a> – and thus tax breaks and couple benefits – in the courtrooms of the U.S., Canada and Europe. </p>
<p>But legal recognition, as of today, doesn’t exist. So there are risks in saying “I do” to a friend. </p>
<h2>The legal pitfalls of platonic marriages</h2>
<p>Two friends can get married for a host of reasons. </p>
<p>They might not believe in the traditional heterosexual family and wish to challenge it. They might simply think that their best friend is the person they want to share chores, meals and finances with. Or they might also believe that, as law-abiding taxpayers, they should also be able to receive the <a href="https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html">family benefits</a> that other married couples receive, like filing their tax returns jointly.</p>
<p>At the moment, though, friendship is not recognized by law. And only a handful of states allow friends to gain legal recognition through registration as domestic partners. These include <a href="https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1216&context=mjgl">Maine, Maryland</a> and <a href="https://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/Portals/777/documents/MarriageCivilUnions/Designated%20Beneficiary%20Agreement.pdf">Colorado</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/406153/original/file-20210614-66119-1qt2q47.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Statuettes of two men in tuxedos adorn the top of a wedding cake." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/406153/original/file-20210614-66119-1qt2q47.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/406153/original/file-20210614-66119-1qt2q47.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406153/original/file-20210614-66119-1qt2q47.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406153/original/file-20210614-66119-1qt2q47.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406153/original/file-20210614-66119-1qt2q47.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1134&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406153/original/file-20210614-66119-1qt2q47.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1134&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406153/original/file-20210614-66119-1qt2q47.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1134&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">It’s pretty easy for two friends to get married – they just can’t admit that they’re only friends.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/in-this-photo-illustration-same-sex-statues-adorn-the-top-news-photo/56334631?adppopup=true">Christopher Furlong/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>However, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf">any two consenting adults</a> – regardless of their genders – can get married in the U.S. Two friends, therefore, can pretty easily pull it off. But they can’t admit that they’re only friends. </p>
<p>Legally speaking, it could be seen as a sham marriage.</p>
<p>For this reason, two friends who tie the knot and receive a marriage certificate can still face considerable risks. They expose themselves to criminal sanctions and civil penalties on grounds of “marriage fraud” if a federal or state agency becomes suspicious of the union. And they may also be denied benefits usually granted to married couples. </p>
<p>Kerry Abrams, the current dean of Duke University School of Law, <a href="https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/3818/">has outlined different doctrines</a> developed in welfare law, social security law and immigration law over the course of the 20th century to specifically detect fake or sham marriages. Whether it’s two people tying the knot so one can gain citizenship, seeking to obtain <a href="https://cite.case.law/mj/74/525/">a housing allowance</a> or getting married ahead of a trial <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/344/604">so they can’t be forced to testify against one another</a>, the conclusions of the courts are the same: Their marriage is a sham, and the individuals expose themselves to criminal or civil liability and a termination of benefits.</p>
<p>Detecting a sham marriage isn’t easy. And courts acknowledge that there are many reasons that may motivate a person’s decision to marry that aren’t “romantic,” such as a desire to file income jointly to gain tax exemptions.</p>
<p>Therefore, courts look at whether there is what they call a “specific illicit purpose.” As <a href="https://cite.case.law/mj/74/525/">a judge wrote in his ruling</a> in a case about a couple that fraudulently got married to gain a housing allowance: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“It is not the absence of a perfect or ideal ‘love, honor, and cherish’ motivation of the parties that renders the consequences flowing from the appellant’s actions in the case before us criminal; rather, it is the affirmative presence of a singularly focused illicit one – an intent to fraudulently acquire a government payment stream – that does so.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Two married friends will need to demonstrate before courts that they did not have a “singularly focused illicit” purpose of acquiring some sort of government benefit. But they’ll have a hard time doing so. That’s because when courts seek to understand whether the couple intended to live together as husband and wife, they’ll be assuming the family norm in which the couple has a sexual relationship. </p>
<p>Since there is no romantic relationship, judges will likely default to arguing that the friends got married only to game the system.</p>
<h2>Can the Constitution help?</h2>
<p>At the constitutional level, there is this one decision that might lend some hope to nonconjugal couples: <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/413/528/">Department of Agriculture v. Moreno</a>, also known as “the hippies case.”</p>
<p>The Moreno case concerned a group of impoverished, unrelated people living under the same roof who, at some point, were denied food stamps by the government. The government argued that its goal was fraud prevention: In its view, households with unrelated people – such as friends – are more likely to commit fraud to illegally obtain government benefits.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court, however, <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1972/72-534">ruled in favor of the household</a> in 1972. It concluded that minimizing fraud is a valid interest, but that the government could do so through other, more specific measures, instead of just denying benefits to a whole group of people. </p>
<p>However there are two problems with using this decision as a precedent for opening the door to allow two friends to marry. First, the outcome was largely driven by what the Supreme Court deemed the “cynical” motives of the legislature, which, in amending the law, had singled out “hippies” as undeserving of food stamps. Second, it isn’t about marriage, per se; it’s about who can gain access to one specific legal benefit: food stamps.</p>
<p>So I would argue that the constitutional decision that says something about the fate of platonic marriages is not Moreno, but <a href="https://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=592919&p=4182205">Obergefell v. Hodges</a>, the Supreme Court judgment on same-sex marriage.</p>
<p>The idea of marriage Obergefell puts forth is one founded on rather traditional family norms. The plaintiffs in the Obergefell case – a gay couple – were, in every way aside from their same gender, congruent with what most Americans understand a married couple to be. Their relationship was sexual, exclusive, romantic, nuclear and involved two people. They were also committed to each other for life. </p>
<p>To show that same-sex marriage is a subset of the broader fundamental right to marry, <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/14-556">LGBTQ litigators chose to reinforce preexisting norms</a> of marriage and family. They marshaled evidence showing that a gay or lesbian couple had the same ability to love, be intimate and raise children. Friends do not necessarily adhere to these norms: They are not intimate, and they are not necessarily interested in raising children, though <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/multimedia/raising-elaan-profoundly-disabled-boy-s-co-mommas-make-legal-history-1.3988464">some of them are</a>. </p>
<p>Ironically, it seems that LGBTQ activism has made it much harder for other nontraditional families to gain access to marriage. <a href="https://theconversation.com/polyamorous-relationships-under-severe-strain-during-the-pandemic-154335">Polyamorous and polygamous relationships</a> are among them. </p>
<p>And, yes, friends, too.</p>
<p>[<em>You’re smart and curious about the world. So are The Conversation’s authors and editors.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=youresmart">You can read us daily by subscribing to our newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/160514/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nausica Palazzo does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Because any two consenting adults can get married in the US, a platonic marriage could pretty easily be pulled off. Legally speaking, though, it’s a sham.Nausica Palazzo, Postdoctoral Fellow in Comparative Law, Hebrew University of JerusalemLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1204712019-09-13T13:18:48Z2019-09-13T13:18:48ZHow benefits rules and family breakdown fuel youth homelessness<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/292024/original/file-20190911-190061-1pdx970.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/mother-teenage-daughter-having-arguument-1095397952?src=614pzjwWyUu8Y8uuu96aVA-1-0">Rawpixel.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In 2017/18 alone, <a href="https://centrepoint.org.uk/media/3069/making-homeless-young-people-count.pdf">103,000 people aged 16 to 24</a> presented themselves as homeless to their local authority in the UK. But while <a href="https://centrepoint.org.uk/media/1700/prevention-what-works_summary.pdf">preventative measures</a> are being implemented to reduce this, a combination of factors that cause youth homelessness is still not being properly addressed: the relationship between poverty and family relationship breakdown – and the role of benefits.</p>
<p>Much of the conversation around preventing youth homelessness doesn’t recognise family conflict being directly related to structural issues such as poverty. It fails to acknowledge that withdrawal of financial support can result in families breaking up and young people becoming homeless. Nor does it recognise that for some young people, due to the way the system works, presenting themselves as homeless may be an almost attractive option.</p>
<p>There are an estimated <a href="http://socialmetricscommission.org.uk/MEASURING-POVERTY-FULL_REPORT.pdf#page=80">14.2m people</a> in the UK in families that are experiencing poverty. Studies have found that <a href="https://england.shelter.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/48627/Factsheet_Young_People_and_Homelessness_Nov_2005.pdf">conflict</a> and <a href="https://www.jrf.org.uk/data/impact-poverty-relationships">relationship breakdown</a> are more common among lower income families. </p>
<p>Other research has confirmed that the majority of young people become homeless as a result of <a href="https://pureapps2.hw.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/481249/JRF_Youth_Homelessness_FinalReport.pdf">family conflict</a> and <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-31510442">relationship breakdown</a>. Further investigation by English charity Homeless Link has revealed that <a href="https://www.homeless.org.uk/.../Young%20and%20Homeless%202018.pdf">49% of young people</a> become homeless due to family breakdown.</p>
<p>Homelessness charity <a href="https://england.shelter.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/48627/Factsheet_Young_People_and_Homelessness_Nov_2005.pdf">Shelter</a> has recognised poverty as being a direct cause of family disputes. The charity argues that financial difficulties make it harder to resolve arguments. This can result in the type of family breakdown that causes homelessness. Other charities have meanwhile recognised that structural factors such as <a href="https://www.homeless.org.uk/sites/default/files/site-attachments/Young%20and%20Homeless%202018.pdf">benefit reductions</a> are increasing youth homelessness numbers among low-income families. </p>
<h2>Financial support</h2>
<p>The problem is that young people are unable to claim most <a href="https://www.gov.uk/jobseekers-allowance/eligibility">benefits</a> before the age of 18 – and parents can only claim government financial support for them if they engage in some form of education or training, such as apprenticeships. This means that household income can dramatically reduce if a 16 year old is not in education, employment or training. Parents can potentially stop receiving <a href="https://www.gov.uk/child-benefit/eligibility">Child Benefits</a>, <a href="https://www.gov.uk/child-maintenance/eligibility">Child Support/Maintenance</a> or <a href="https://www.gov.uk/child-tax-credit">Child Tax Credits</a>. A reduction in <a href="https://www.gov.uk/child-benefit/what-youll-get">Child Benefit</a> alone can leave a family £82.80 per month poorer. </p>
<p>When young people turn 16, they are legally classed as children, but their parents are no longer <a href="https://fullfact.org/law/legal-age-limits/">legally responsible</a> for their housing. So if they get evicted from the family home and present themselves as homeless, the local authority <a href="https://www.nhas.org.uk/docs/G_v_Southwark_briefing_revised_Nov_11.pdf">has a duty</a> to immediately house them in suitable accommodation. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nTvYHAkSFbA?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Young people at the ages of 16 and 17 are recognised as being “<a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/41/section/17">in need</a>” when they become homeless, so they qualify for the same benefit entitlement as someone over the age of 18. They can claim <a href="https://england.shelter.org.uk/legal/housing_options/young_people_and_care_leavers/paying_for_accommodation">Housing Benefit</a> and <a href="https://www.nhas.org.uk/improving-outcomes/advising-young-people/money-matters/benefits-and-financial-support-for-young-people/welfare-benefits">Job Seekers Allowance (JSA)</a>, or <a href="https://www.nhas.org.uk/improving-outcomes/advising-young-people/money-matters/benefits-and-financial-support-for-young-people/welfare-benefits">Universal Credit</a>, to financially support them while they reside in emergency accommodation. </p>
<p>Due to these rules, families living in poverty – who have no other option – may see this method of presenting homelessness as a way to take the financial pressure off. This is anything but an easy ride, however.</p>
<h2>Stuck in poverty</h2>
<p>When they become homeless, 16 and 17-year-olds are typically offered places in accommodation which gives them extra practical and emotional support. This varies according to what each person needs but can cover anything from daily living skills to advice on accessing education and employment, or mental health help. The aim is to help them build the skills they need to live independently. But this type of accommodation costs around <a href="https://www.crisis.org.uk/media/20677/crisis_at_what_cost_2015.pdf">£400 per week</a>.</p>
<p>Due to this high cost, young people are limited in <a href="https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/2-142-a-month-homeless-accommodation-that-traps-people-in-poverty-dr-beth-watts-1-4837175">employment opportunities</a>. If they earn over a certain amount (which varies according to hours worked, wages and age, among other factors), they will become liable to pay a percentage of the rent which would otherwise be covered by their housing benefit. This usually leaves them in a situation where they are better off claiming JSA rather than working. Indeed, Barnados has reported that <a href="http://www.barnardos.org.uk/homeless_not_voiceless_report.pdf">some hostel staff</a> have reluctantly discouraged young people from full-time jobs while living there as a result of this dilemma. </p>
<p>In addition, financial incentives for education and training, such as <a href="https://www.studentfinancewales.co.uk/fe/information-for-parents/education-maintenance-allowance.aspx">Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA)</a>, are undermined when young homeless people can claim more money through JSA. Arguably, young people who live in supported accommodation are in a situation where they may consider it a better option not to engage in education, training, or employment. This can be detrimental to their <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1023/A:1025694823396">long-term life chances</a>.</p>
<p>These, and the other <a href="http://www.employabilityinscotland.com/media/82460/reducing-dependencyincreasing-opportunity-options-for-the-future-of-welfare-to-work.pdf">multiple disadvantages</a> they face, can exclude young people from the labour market, resulting in them becoming reliant on benefits for prolonged periods of time.</p>
<p>If parents are unable to obtain the necessary financial support for their children, they may very well consider homelessness to be a viable solution to their problem. Combined with the limited options that young people have in terms of housing generally, obtaining accommodation through homeless services might be seen as an appealing alternative. </p>
<p>But in the long term it is <a href="https://www.york.ac.uk/media/chp/documents/2015/CostsofHomelessness.pdf">far more expensive</a> for the country, more damaging to young people’s future prospects – and potentially their <a href="https://www.crisis.org.uk/ending-homelessness/health-and-wellbeing/drugs-and-alcohol/">physical</a> and <a href="https://www.younghealthprogrammeyhp.com/content/dam/young-health/Resources/Publications/Making-it-matter-putting-it-into-practice.pdf">mental</a> health – than if the country simply provided financial support to families, preventing homelessness and keeping them together.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/120471/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matt Howell receives funding from ESRC. He is affiliated with Housing Studies Association.</span></em></p>For families living in poverty, making their 16 or 17 year old child homeless may be the only option to keeping them all afloat.Matt Howell, PhD Student, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1153662019-04-26T01:13:28Z2019-04-26T01:13:28ZNew Zealand’s dismal record on child poverty and the government’s challenge to turn it around<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/270867/original/file-20190425-121237-1abivdx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=110%2C85%2C3983%2C2626&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Some children in New Zealand live in such hardship that they don't have a good pair of shoes and have to put up with feeling cold.
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">from www.shutterstock.com</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The latest <a href="https://www.stats.govt.nz/news/child-poverty-statistics-released">statistics on childhood poverty in New Zealand</a> suggest that, on some key measures, things are worse than previously estimated. </p>
<p>About one in six children (16% or 183,000) live below a before-housing-cost relative poverty measure, but that figure jumps to almost one in four (23% or 254,000) once housing costs are accounted for. And 13% (148,000) are living in households that experience material hardship – 6% in severe hardship. These children don’t have such basic things as two good pairs of shoes. Their families regularly have to cut back on fresh fruit and veggies, put up with feeling cold and postpone visits to the doctor.</p>
<p>The data show that the government will need to do much more to reach its targets for reducing childhood poverty.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/one-in-five-nsw-high-school-kids-suffers-severe-deprivation-of-lifes-essentials-107600">One in five NSW high school kids suffers "severe" deprivation of life's essentials</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Measuring child poverty</h2>
<p>New Zealand introduced the <a href="http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2018/0057/18.0/LMS8294.html">Child Poverty Reduction Act</a> at the end of last year. It was a bold move reflecting the Ardern government’s commitment to do something about New Zealand’s dismal child poverty statistics. Earlier this month, <a href="https://www.stats.govt.nz/">Stats NZ</a> released the <a href="https://www.stats.govt.nz/news/child-poverty-statistics-released">first set of baseline statistics</a> required under the act. </p>
<p>Previous governments, both National and Labour, may have talked about child poverty but shied away from binding targets. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, who has also made herself minister for child poverty reduction, has put through clear legislation, eventually winning cross-party support for it.</p>
<p>The act does two main things. First, it requires the government statistician to report annually on a set of four “primary” and six “supplementary” measures of child poverty. (One primary measure, poverty persistence, does not come into force until 2025.) </p>
<p>Second, it requires governments to set three-year and ten-year targets for each of the primary measures and to report on progress to parliament. Any failures to meet targets must be explained. </p>
<p>The three primary measures are:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Relative poverty, <em>before</em> housing costs: the proportion of children living in households whose equivalised disposable income before housing costs is less than 50% of the median. This measure compares a household’s income for the previous 12 months to the current median for all households. The median will move from year to year due to inflation and economic changes. A low-income household will improve its situation if its income moves by more than the median.</p></li>
<li><p>Constant value poverty <em>after</em> housing costs: the proportion of children living in households whose equivalised disposable income after housing costs is less than 50% of the base-year median. This measure gives an indication of the spending power households have after paying either rent or mortgage repayments, rates and insurance.</p></li>
<li><p>Material hardship: the proportion of children living in households that are experiencing material hardship, defined as having a score of six or more on the <a href="https://www.stats.govt.nz/methods/measuring-child-poverty-material-hardship">DEP-17 deprivation index</a>. </p></li>
</ol>
<h2>The government’s targets</h2>
<p>Well before the act was finalised, the prime minister had announced the government’s ten-year targets: 5% on the first measure, 10% on the second and 7% on the third. </p>
<p>These are ambitious targets, which would put New Zealand near the top of the <a href="https://data.oecd.org/inequality/poverty-rate.htm">OECD rankings</a>. That said, they still imply a significant number of children in poverty.</p>
<p>During the evolution of the legislation, the government also decided to bring forward the starting year for measurement of the targets to 2018-19, therefore making the baseline year 2017-18. This has the advantage of ensuring the impact of its <a href="https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/about-work-and-income/news/2017/families-package.html">Families Package</a> contributes to achieving the targets, but the disadvantage that targets had to be set before the official Stats NZ baseline measures were available. </p>
<p>The three-year targets were therefore expressed in percentage-point decreases, rather than in absolute terms (reductions of 6, 4 and 3 percentage points respectively).</p>
<p>Ironically, the worse-than-expected figures make the government’s short-term targets slightly easier to reach. Taking six percentage points off a larger number is easier to achieve than if the baseline had turned out lower than expected. Nonetheless, it must still lift 72,000 children over the first line, 42,000 over the after-housing-cost measure, and 37,000 out of the material hardship category.</p>
<h2>How to reduce childhood poverty</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/about-work-and-income/news/2017/families-package.html">Families Package</a>, announced before the 2017 election, will go part of the way. Its increases in the Working for Families tax credits and, to a lesser extent, the changes to the Accommodation Supplement will reduce child poverty, especially against the first before-housing-cost measure. Treasury has <a href="https://treasury.govt.nz/publications/media-statement/treasury-corrects-coding-error-child-poverty-projections">estimated</a> that the Families Package will reduce the number of children below this measure by 64,000 by 2021. </p>
<p>The impact on the after-housing-cost measure is likely to be smaller because of rising rental costs, which grew by an <a href="https://www.interest.co.nz/property/94733/average-rent-has-increased-22-week-52-last-12-months">average of 5.2% during 2018</a>. The reduction in the number of children living under material hardship is also likely to be less substantial.</p>
<p>Other changes might have some effect. The government is committed to increasing the statutory minimum wage to $20 per hour by 2021. It was $15.75 for most of the baseline year, rising to $16.50 on April 1 2018. Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment <a href="https://www.mbie.govt.nz/business-and-employment/employment-and-skills/employment-legislation-reviews/minimum-wage-reviews/">analysis</a>, however, suggests minimum wage increases will have a “relatively limited impact” on poverty among households with children because most poor kids are not living in households with a minimum-wage earner. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.labour.org.nz/what_we_re_doing_for_housing">Housing initiatives</a>, especially more state housing, will help eventually but will take too long to have any impact on the three-year poverty targets. The 2018 budget extensions to free and low-cost doctors’ visits for children and the broadening of access to the Community Services Card can be expected to help families experiencing material hardship, as will other changes such as the banning of tenancy letting fees. But these can only be expected to have marginal impacts. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/nz-budget-2018-gains-for-health-housing-and-education-in-fiscally-conservative-budget-96794">NZ budget 2018: gains for health, housing and education in fiscally conservative budget</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Substantial further initiatives will be needed over the next two years.
The size of the task is illustrated here.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/271110/original/file-20190425-121249-1pvnt35.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/271110/original/file-20190425-121249-1pvnt35.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=392&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271110/original/file-20190425-121249-1pvnt35.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=392&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271110/original/file-20190425-121249-1pvnt35.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=392&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271110/original/file-20190425-121249-1pvnt35.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=492&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271110/original/file-20190425-121249-1pvnt35.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=492&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271110/original/file-20190425-121249-1pvnt35.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=492&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Michael Fletcher</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The after-housing-costs measure must come down the most but has been heading in the right direction following the global financial crisis. This reflects the fact that it is adjusted only for price inflation and the incomes of some poor households have been rising more quickly than prices. The material hardship measure has also been trending down, probably for similar reasons.</p>
<p>The most challenging target will be the relative poverty measure. Recent good economic growth and a strong labour market have done nothing to reduce this measure. Indeed, it has been more or less constant for over a decade. </p>
<p>Cutting poverty on this measure requires bringing poor households nearer to the median, reducing inequality between the poor and those in the middle. A rising tide that lifts all boats equally will do nothing to reduce relative poverty. </p>
<p>The government will also need to ensure its policies help the poorest of the poor. Reaching the three primary targets but not cutting the numbers below the lowest poverty line would be a hollow achievement. Most of these children are in families reliant on benefit incomes. Part of any successful strategy to reduce child poverty must involve increasing the level of assistance to families on benefits.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/115366/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Fletcher does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The New Zealand government has set targets for reducing child poverty, but with hundreds of thousands of children living in poverty, this goal remains a challenge.Michael Fletcher, Senior Research Fellow, Institute for Governance and Policy Studies, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of WellingtonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/841532017-09-18T16:38:13Z2017-09-18T16:38:13ZBritain’s unclaimed benefits: four million families miss out on £12.4 billion<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/186225/original/file-20170915-8071-1kycsz5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Why aren't people entitled to benefits claiming them?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">via shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Up to £12.4 billion of means-tested benefits – including pension credit, housing benefit and jobseekers and employment support allowance – were left unclaimed in 2015-16, according to <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/644062/income-related-benefits-estimates-of-take-up-2015-16.pdf">new data</a> released by the UK’s Department for Work and Pensions. </p>
<p>Means-tested benefits are designed to ensure a minimum standard of living for Britain’s poorest families. But not all those people eligible are claiming them – in comparison to the near universal take-up rate of the basic state pension and widespread take-up of child benefit (which is taxable only for high earners). </p>
<p>Annual average amounts unclaimed by eligible families vary from an estimated £5,000 per year for those eligible for employment support allowance (for those with a disability or long-term illness), to £2,000 per year for those eligible for pension credit. In a parallel <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/577510/Child_Benefit__Child_Tax_Credit_and_Working_Tax_Credit_Take-up_rates_2014_to_2015.pdf">data series</a> HM Revenue & Customs estimates take-up rates for tax credits – which are paid directly to qualifying low paid workers. </p>
<p>The latest data for 2014-15 adds further to the scale of unclaimed entitlements. The central estimate is that £2.3 billion of child tax credit and £3 billion of working tax credit went unclaimed by 640,000 families and 1.2m families respectively.</p>
<p>Improving take-up rates of means-tested benefits directly reduces poverty. Research <a href="http://www.learningandwork.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Benefit-Take-Up-Final-Report-Inclusion-proofed-June-2014-pdf.pdf">also suggests</a> that families who top up their income with benefits also have higher levels of health, family well-being, and employment participation and retention.</p>
<h2>Why people don’t claim</h2>
<p>The failure to claim benefits <a href="http://www.learningandwork.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Benefit-Take-Up-Final-Report-Inclusion-proofed-June-2014-pdf.pdf">stems from</a> a mix of social and economic circumstances, administrative structures, and complex eligibility rules. It may, for example, reflect a lack of awareness about the availability of the benefit or a potential claimant’s expectation that the costs involved in applying for the benefit outweigh the value of any payment. </p>
<p>But there is <a href="https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/problems-delivery-benefits-tax-credits-and-employment-services">much evidence</a> that a key factor undermining take-up is the poor design and delivery of the benefits system. Take-up has also been implicitly discouraged by policy changes targeted at some working age groups, especially the short-term unemployed. An increase in conditions and related sanctions are designed to get people into work as quickly as possible and, as a result, make their claims to benefits relatively short-lived. </p>
<p>Plus, the tenor of contemporary media narratives on welfare dependency has <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-our-unconscious-minds-are-prejudiced-against-benefit-claimants-83926">increased the stigma</a> attached to claimants, especially people of working age. Research suggests this stigmatisation <a href="http://www.turn2us.org.uk/PDF/Benefits%20Stigma%20in%20Britain.pdf">is linked to reductions in take-up</a> and a reluctance to claim among potential beneficiaries, notably among pensioners. </p>
<p>The British government is <a href="https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/sites/default/files/ef_publication/field_ef_document/ef1536en.pdf">unique in Europe</a> in publishing robust annual estimates of benefit and tax credit take-up. The data for 2015-16 gives an insight into which families are at risk of poverty and claim the help from the state that they are entitled to, as the graph below shows. </p>
<p><iframe id="aa2BQ" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/aa2BQ/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Take-up rates vary depending on the type of household. For example, while the overall take-up of housing benefit was 77%, it ranged from over 90% for singles with children to only 64% for those eligible in private rented accommodation. And while the main estimate for working tax credit was 65%, only 33% of eligible households without children were claiming it. </p>
<p>The data implies that those with greater entitlements are more likely to claim. A significant change since 2012-13 was a decrease of 11% in means-tested jobseekers allowance caseload take-up – people who are entitled to a benefit but who do not claim it. This may have been due to high employment rates, more stringent conditions attached to claiming unemployment benefit and the early impact of the new universal credit, which for working age people rolls most means-tested benefit entitlements into a single monthly payment.</p>
<h2>Universal credit take-up must be measured</h2>
<p>There are no estimates or commitment yet given to publish take-up data for universal credit, even though it is now claimed by 1.5m people and will, it is estimated, be <a href="http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/docs/dlm_uploads/UC-caseload-forecasts-supplementary-forecast-information-release.pdf">claimed by nearly 6m households in 2021</a>. One of the supposed principal benefits of universal credit is that it will improve take-up rates by making the system less complicated and easier to deliver.</p>
<p>The evidence on take-up suggests these assumptions are over optimistic. It will take time for awareness to develop about the new rules and regulations involved. </p>
<p>It is unlikely that public and voluntary sector organisations will be able to invest in the additional effort needed to inform potential claimants, front line delivery staff, and related intermediary organisations that assist more disadvantaged groups and communities. There is also a risk that the “default digital delivery” (which means that most universal credit claimants must apply and self-manage their claims online) may reduce and deter take-up among people without access to computers or the skills to navigate digital channels. </p>
<p>Means-tested entitlements will likely remain at the centre of the British welfare system, including for many pensioners. And measures to improve take-up will remain central to national and local poverty-reduction strategies. It’s therefore vital to continue publishing take-up data to gauge the future impact of universal credit and related welfare and pension reforms. </p>
<p>If universal credit take-up rates do not improve as anticipated, the government should establish and state what percentage of eligible people eligible it expects to take it up. Measuring take-up rates would provide an important way to assess the impact of universal credit and help establish a transparent benchmark to measure whether the new system is achieving its objectives of reducing poverty and incentivising work. The government might also consider investing some of the £12.4 billion unspent means-tested benefits to develop new ways to increase take-up.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/84153/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dan Finn Dan Finn received funding from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation for some of the research drawn on for this article.</span></em></p>Means-tested benefits are designed to ensure a minimum standard of living for Britain’s poorest families.Dan Finn, Emeritus Professor of Social Inclusion, University of PortsmouthLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/754222017-04-05T11:00:59Z2017-04-05T11:00:59ZBenefit changes will entrench the poor in ‘food bank Britain’<p>Changes to Britain’s social security system which come into force this month will entrench impoverished households in further poverty. The changes mean that in the future there will be an increase in the number of people who are income poor and reliant upon charitable forms of poverty relief such as food banks. Households with children and disabled people who are deemed capable of making efforts to hasten their entry into work will be among the most acutely affected.</p>
<p>Until April 2017, Child Tax Credit (CTC) was paid for each child in a family, provided they were poor enough. From now on, for new claimants, the number of children for whom CTC will be paid will be restricted to just two. Hence, in the assessment of the financial needs of income poor families, subsequent children will not be included. This is an important development because it divorces means-tested social security support from the needs of families.</p>
<p>This measure was announced in the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/topical-events/budget-july-2015">Summer Budget of 2015</a>. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/chancellor-george-osbornes-summer-budget-2015-speech">argued</a> that it would help to return “fairness” to the social security system as many working families don’t see their budgets rise “when they have more children”. The <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/443232/50325_Summer_Budget_15_Web_Accessible.pdf">Treasury noted</a> that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The government believes that those in receipt of tax credits should face the same financial choices about having children as those supporting themselves solely through work.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The government was arguably influenced by a concern with “benefits broods” (large families in receipt of benefits) – the cultural representation of which is regularly employed by those seeking to <a href="https://mediapovertywelfare.wordpress.com/2014/10/31/life-on-the-dole-for-benefit-broods/">dismantle</a> collectively provided benefits.</p>
<p>The restriction of CTC to two children has been widely criticised. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/17/rape-rule-tax-credits-rights-children-sex-crime">Concerns</a>, for example, have been expressed that women who have a child as the consequence of rape will have to declare this in order to receive payments for their third child. In addition, and unsurprisingly given that the measure will cost families £2,780 per annum for each child above the two, the Institute for Fiscal Studies <a href="https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/comms/R114.pdf">estimates</a> an additional 200,000 children living in poverty by 2020 because of the two child benefit limit.</p>
<h2>Disability benefits</h2>
<p>The 2015 Summer Budget also announced cuts to benefits for chronically sick and disabled people. New claimants of Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) who are deemed to be capable of engaging in work-related activity to hasten their reentry into paid work will receive a benefit that is £29.05 (28 per cent) per week lower than a person receiving it before April 2017.</p>
<p>George Osborne <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/chancellor-george-osbornes-summer-budget-2015-speech">argued</a> that this slashing of benefits was necessary in order to encourage disabled people into paid employment. Between 2010 and 2015 the number of ESA claimants had fallen by a much lower number (90,000) than the fall in Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants (700,000). This convinced Osborne that ESA incentivised disabled people to remain on benefits. The main problem with this analysis is that it ignores the <a href="https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/research-report-88-barriers-to-employment-and-unfair-treatment-at-work-disabled-peoples-experiences.pdf">discrimination and other barriers</a> that disabled people face in accessing paid work.</p>
<h2>Understanding the benefit changes</h2>
<p>In his budget speech, Osborne <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/chancellor-george-osbornes-summer-budget-2015-speech">said</a> that the government’s intention was to shift Britain “from a low wage, high tax, high welfare economy; to the higher wage, lower tax, lower welfare country”. The social security changes outlined here certainly help to shift Britain to a “lower welfare country”. It is <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/443232/50325_Summer_Budget_15_Web_Accessible.pdf">estimated</a> that the two combined cuts will save £2.005 billion per annum by 2020/21. </p>
<p>Increases in the national minimum wage were also announced. But <a href="https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/bns/BN175.pdf">research</a> demonstrates that these will not offset the benefit cuts. Increased wages only help those people in work (which, by definition, recipients of ESA are not). And they are of less value to low wage families, as CTC recipients are likely to be, because increases in wages reduce means-tested benefits (including CTC) paid to households in low paid work. </p>
<p>The changes are driven by a classic liberal belief that the state should provide as little as possible for the fewest people possible on “less eligible” terms, otherwise it risks eroding self sufficiency and self control. The cuts reflect and help popularise the idea that social security benefits encourage recipients to reject paid work in favour of a life “on benefits”. While the cuts to CTC are premised upon the idea that benefits incentivise families to have children they cannot afford. These views have been <a href="http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Reports/rptPLC.html">central to poor relief</a> and social security policy for hundreds of years, even during the “golden era” of the post-World War II welfare state. </p>
<p>The central notion in this anti-benefits argument is the idea that people will only work and refrain from having children through enforced poverty. But the fact is that the government is to make massive savings by delving into the pockets of the poorest people in Britain. These changes will increase <a href="https://feedingbritain.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/food-poverty-feeding-britain-final-2.pdf">hunger in families</a> and entrench <a href="https://www.trusselltrust.org/2016/04/15/foodbank-use-remains-record-high/">the use of food banks</a> in the UK. Increased participation in paid work and smaller families is the aim, but more poverty and hunger will be the result.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/75422/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Chris Grover has in the past received funding from the British Academy. </span></em></p>Changes to the benefits system delve into the pockets of the poor and will lead to more families and disabled people needing to use food banks.Chris Grover, Senior Lecturer in Social Policy, Lancaster UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/716042017-01-23T01:45:16Z2017-01-23T01:45:16ZPaid family leave policies are expanding, but are new mothers actually taking time off?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/153760/original/image-20170122-10226-166ucnu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Bring your baby to work day?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Office baby via www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The recent presidential campaign reminded us that the U.S. is one of only a handful of countries that doesn’t require companies to provide paid maternity leave. </p>
<p>Maternity leave is important. One of the key reasons is because <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/29/health/paid-leave-benefits-to-children-research/">medical researchers have shown</a> overwhelmingly positive effects when parents are able to spend time with their newborn children. </p>
<p>Fortunately, in the past year a number of <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2016/12/30/these-companies-all-boosted-paid-parental-leave-in-2016/#7867550678d0">major companies announced</a> amazing improvements in maternity and paternity leave policy. <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-05/chobani-gives-parental-leave-as-issue-escalates-in-u-s-election">Chobani</a>, the yogurt company, began giving six weeks of paid leave to all employees, including those working on the factory floor. Then <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2016/12/06/ikea-family-leave/95047768/">Ikea</a>, the large furniture seller, announced all staff were eligible for four months of paid leave when a baby is born. <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/12/pf/paid-parental-leave-american-express/">American Express</a> announced an even more generous plan, offering 20 weeks at full pay for all workers. <a href="https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/child-care">Even President Donald Trump</a> jumped on the bandwagon and announced his support for six weeks of paid maternity leave.</p>
<p>For expectant parents working at companies with newly expanded leave policies, this is great news. However, not all people work for companies with generous maternity or paternity leave programs. Government figures suggest <a href="https://www.dol.gov/wb/paidleave/PDF/PaidLeave.pdf">only 12 percent of workers</a> at private companies have access to paid parental leave.</p>
<p>More importantly, just because a company offers a benefit doesn’t mean workers use it. For example, <a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/story/55-of-american-workers-dont-take-all-their-paid-vacation-2016-06-15">roughly half of all people in the U.S.</a> don’t use all their vacation days.</p>
<p>While knowing figures on access to paid leave is useful, more useful is knowing the number of workers who actually take maternity leave. While maternity leave sounds like a great benefit, if it means a cut in pay or a chance of losing a particular job, some women might not take advantage of the benefit. </p>
<p>Recently, I <a href="http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303607">published research</a> that looks at how many working women today are taking maternity leave compared with a few decades ago. The results are not encouraging.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5fO_Gruakog?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>Current state of affairs</h2>
<p>The United States <a href="http://www.worldpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/Work%20Family%20and%20Equity%20Index-How%20does%20the%20US%20measure%20up-Jan%202007.pdf">is one of only a few countries</a> in the world that does not offer guaranteed paid leave for women after childbirth. Some of the others that don’t offer paid leave are places like Liberia, Papua New Guinea and Swaziland. Moreover, the <a href="http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C183">United Nations calls for all countries</a> to provide a minimum of 14 weeks of paid leave for new mothers.</p>
<p>What does the U.S. provide? Since 1993 most workers are covered by the government’s <a href="https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/benefits-leave/fmla">Family and Medical Leave Act</a> (FMLA). This law gives eligible workers 12 weeks of unpaid time off to care for a newborn.</p>
<p>However, just because FMLA has been enacted doesn’t mean a new parent takes maternity or paternity leave. Some new parents cannot afford to take leave because they need to pay bills.</p>
<p>Others don’t take leave because they are worried their job might not be available when they want to come back to work. <a href="https://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs28a.htm">FMLA states</a> employees taking leave do not have to be given their same job back. Instead, they have to be given an “equivalent” job. Companies and workers might not agree on what is “equivalent.”</p>
<p>There wasn’t any information on actual usage of maternity leave, so I set out to calculate the numbers.</p>
<h2>My expectations</h2>
<p>Before doing any calculations, I expected to see an increasing number of women taking maternity leave for two reasons. First, the U.S. economy has greatly expanded since the early 1990s. <a href="https://bea.gov/NATIONAL/PDF/NIPA_PRIMER.PDF">GDP</a>, which measures what the country produces, <a href="https://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls">has grown about 66 percent</a> since 1994, after adjusting for inflation. The richer the country, the easier it is to pay for improved benefits for workers.</p>
<p>Second, starting in 2004 a few states decided to enact paid maternity leave. <a href="http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-paid-family-leave-california-20160411-story.html">California was first, and it began giving women</a> up to six weeks of paid time off for newborn care as part of its state disability program. A few years later, the states of <a href="http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/03/paid_family_leave_law_works_but_few_know_about_it.html">New Jersey</a> and <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/06/24/what-paid-family-leave-looks-like-in-the-three-states-that-require-it/?utm_term=.2309b210a84d">Rhode Island</a> also enacted paid maternity leave programs. <a href="https://www.ny.gov/programs/paid-family-leave-strong-families-strong-ny">Soon New York</a> will become the fourth state offering paid leave.</p>
<p><a href="http://businessmacroeconomics.com/">I</a> was able to calculate maternity leave information using the <a href="http://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps.html">Current Population Survey</a>. This is the survey the government uses to determine the <a href="https://www.bls.gov/cps/">nation’s unemployment rate</a>. Each month the survey contacts about 60,000 households across all 50 states. It records detailed information about everyone in the family. <a href="https://www.bls.gov/cps/revisions1994.pdf">Since 1994 it has identified</a> all people on maternity and paternity leave, regardless of whether it was paid.</p>
<h2>What the data show</h2>
<p>The results are striking. </p>
<p>The data show that maternity leave figures are essentially unchanged since 1994. For example, the number of women on leave in both 1995 and 2014 was almost the same absolute number and the same rate per 10,000 births. </p>
<p>During the average month, about 336,000 babies were born and slightly more than 273,000 women were on maternity leave at the time the survey was taken. Since the survey does not ask parents exactly when the baby was born, it is impossible to know for sure exactly how many of those births resulted in a mother actually taking leave. Nevertheless, if the U.N. guidelines of 14 weeks were being followed in the U.S., we should be seeing almost a million women on leave at any given time rather than the quarter of a million we are seeing.</p>
<hr>
<iframe id="datawrapper-chart-lO6I9" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/lO6I9/1/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="500"></iframe>
<hr>
<p>To me, it’s startling that the number of women on maternity leave has barely budged even after California and other states have passed paid leave laws. There is no trend after adjusting for these new laws or for the number of births, unemployment rates and recessions. </p>
<p>As for paternity leave, the data show the number of men who have taken it has more than tripled since 1994, to a monthly average of about 22,000 in 2015. Given a third of a million babies are born each month, the figures still mean relatively few men take time off from work to care for a newborn child. </p>
<h2>Paid versus unpaid</h2>
<p><a href="http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303607">My research</a> also looked at changes in paid versus unpaid maternity leave. There the news is slightly better. </p>
<p>Approximately half of all women on maternity leave were paid. This figure is climbing slowly over time. In 1994 about 45 percent of women on maternity leave were paid. In 2015, more than two decades later, the figure was slightly above half. At this rate all women on maternity leave will get paid during their time off in about 200 more years, which is slightly less than how long the U.S. has been in existence.</p>
<hr>
<iframe id="datawrapper-chart-oDocI" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/oDocI/1/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<hr>
<p>The Current Population Survey does not include questions on why people take or forgo parental leave after a baby is born. This means I am not sure what the reasons are behind the lack of change in the number of women on maternity leave, even though the economy has grown dramatically and three states have set up paid leave programs. </p>
<p>Two potential reasons for the lack of change are that the amount of pay provided for women thinking about taking maternity leave is too low and the amount of job protection provided by current maternity leave laws is too weak.</p>
<p>President Trump made a <a href="https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/child-care">campaign promise</a> of six weeks of paid maternity leave for all working women. If the legislation fulfilling this promise ensures decent pay and strong job protection, then more of America’s babies will have a better start to their lives.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/71604/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jay L. Zagorsky does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>If President Trump follows through on his campaign promise, new mothers may soon have six weeks of guaranteed paid leave. But something is keeping them from using the benefits they already have.Jay L. Zagorsky, Economist and Research Scientist, The Ohio State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/444402015-07-08T14:46:46Z2015-07-08T14:46:46ZFree from the confines of coalition, Osborne goes on benefits rampage<p>George Osborne has unveiled significant cuts to welfare in his first budget for the majority Conservative government. </p>
<p>Detailing plans to cut £12bn from the pot, the chancellor revealed that the benefits cap will be lowered to households earning £20,000 or less and that many working-age benefits will be <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1110b86c-2558-11e5-bd83-71cb60e8f08c.html#axzz3fJBt0KPu">frozen for four years</a>.</p>
<p>Families will only be able to claim in-work benefits for their first two children and young people will no longer have an automatic right to housing benefit. </p>
<p>Social housing rents will be increased to near market value for households earning £40,000 in London and £30,000 outside.</p>
<p>The government’s programme of public investment cuts is underpinned by a perverse dual logic – that the poor must be punished to encourage them to work, and the rich need as much support as possible in order to create jobs and grow the economy.</p>
<p>These are pillars of the Tories’ economic policy, but evidence is thin on both sides. Since 2007, disposable incomes have <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/12/uk-disposable-incomes-fell-first-three-years-of-coalition-government-ons-tax">fallen</a>, the burden of poverty has <a href="http://npi.org.uk/publications/children-and-young-adults/739/">shifted toward the young</a> and the gap between rich and poor has <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11355286/Archbishop-of-Canterbury-Gap-between-Britains-rich-and-poor-widening.html">widened</a>.</p>
<p>Economic growth <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/102746985">forecasts</a> remain weak, with some predicting periods of stagnation or decline until 2017. While the economic impact of these cuts is difficult to predict, the legacy of long-term poverty, deprivation, inequality and indignity this strategy will impart is certain.</p>
<p>Low-income families are being targeted with the benefits cap. To put the £20,000 threshold in perspective, the <a href="http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/MIS-2015-full.pdf">Joseph Rowntree Foundation</a> suggests a couple with two children needs to earn £40,000 to maintain an acceptable standard of living.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/87798/original/image-20150708-31598-4qfawe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/87798/original/image-20150708-31598-4qfawe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87798/original/image-20150708-31598-4qfawe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87798/original/image-20150708-31598-4qfawe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87798/original/image-20150708-31598-4qfawe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87798/original/image-20150708-31598-4qfawe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87798/original/image-20150708-31598-4qfawe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">She’ll stop crying if you give her a tax credit.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Tania Kolinko/Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Since benefits make up a substantial percentage of income for poorer households, these cuts are likely to push such families further below the acceptable standard-of-living threshold.</p>
<p>In the absence of real wage growth and a continuing decline in the quality of employment – as evidenced by the widespread use of zero-hours contracts – suitable social protection measures such as benefits are now more necessary than ever.</p>
<h2>A fair balance?</h2>
<p>Lost in this debate is an assessment of the cost of sustaining the poor relative to the costs of subsidising the rich. Of the total welfare bill, the largest share goes to the Department for Work and Pensions, which receives approximately £167 billion, while the next largest item of direct benefit expenditure is housing benefit at £17 billion. This round of cuts is therefore equal to the annual Disability Living Allowance budget of £12.6 billion, or the cost of child benefit which currently stands at £12.2 billion.</p>
<p>In comparative budgetary terms, these cuts are severe in their scale, amounting to more than two years’ worth of Jobseeker’s Allowance.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, the threshold for paying the higher rate of income tax will be raised to £50,000. Successive cuts to higher rate tax since 1980 have helped the wealthiest 1% of earners grow their share of total income from 9.8%, to a high of 15.4% in 2009.</p>
<p>The threshold for entry into the top 1% in the UK is just under £160,000 – and the increase in the inheritance tax threshold announced in this budget will make it even easier for this group to pass on its privilege to future generations.</p>
<p>Now unrestrained by the Liberal Democrats, pro-rich policies look set to meet little future resistance on the floor of the House of Commons. The perverse dual logic of this strategy of cuts is revealed by the scale of national income lost to corporate welfare, with direct subsidies and grants to the private sector, tax breaks, credit and export insurance, and public procurement costing just under £85 billion per year.</p>
<p>While the announcement of a phased increase in the minimum wage is welcome, it is difficult to see how this will reverse the inequality that will come as a result of this budget without a matching commitment to improving the quality of employment available.</p>
<h2>A lesson from Greece</h2>
<p>In presenting his budget, Osborne said the situation in Greece should serve as a lesson. And indeed it should, but perhaps not for the reasons he thinks. Greece shows the devastating effects of austerity, and indeed, so does Ireland – the example Europe suggested Greece follow.</p>
<p>The “model results” of Ireland’s austerity strategy include a near-doubling of child poverty rates since 2008, a reduction in direct income support to families and lone parents, and an internship scheme for the unemployed which has amounted to little more than state-subsidised cheap labour for the private sector. Ireland now enjoys the highest unemployment spend, at double the European average, with its various “activation” measures generating few prospects for quality long-term employment.</p>
<p>Osborne’s measures look certain to compound disadvantage across generations, remove vital streams of income and social support from the most vulnerable, while shoring up the prosperity of the wealthy.</p>
<p>Rather than seeing inequality as a social problem though, to a Conservative, inequality is necessary to a healthy, functioning capitalism. While this line of reasoning was consigned to the scrapheap of social theory shortly after World War II, it remains a staple of Tory economic policy.</p>
<p>But Conservative capitalism is not about distributing the fruits of our collective labour equally so this new wave of budget cuts should surprise no-one.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/44440/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Eoin Flaherty does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>After months of speculation, we now know how the Chancellor plans to save £12bn from the welfare budget.Eoin Flaherty, Lecturer in Sociology (Political Economy and Human Ecology), Queen's University BelfastLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/416082015-05-11T20:07:47Z2015-05-11T20:07:47ZFocus on working parents misses true value of universal early childhood services<p>The federal government is abandoning children’s rights to subsidised non-parental care. Apart from 15 hours preschool for four and five-year-olds, the newly announced <a href="http://www.pm.gov.au/media/2015-05-10/jobs-families-child-care-package-delivers-choice-families">childcare package</a> focuses on pushing mothers into paid work or more paid work as a condition of subsidy – unless the child is in need of remedial programs, which may stigmatise many users. This contrasts both with overseas evidence that <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-uk-should-follow-nordics-lead-on-universal-childcare-31989">universal access is better</a> for remedying disadvantage and the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2015/s4228099.htm">UK government election promise</a> that all children aged three and older will receive 30 hours of free preschool care, up from 15, because it’s good for all children!</p>
<p>The idea that universal children’s services are an essential part of a network of community services is gone, together with other aspects of good social policies. </p>
<p>Another bad move is proposed cuts to paid parental leave, which will restrict most parents to 18 weeks. The budget plan is to refuse to pay the government benefit if employers fund top-ups. This abandons the recommended minimum standard of 26 weeks, which <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/federal-budget/federal-budget-2015-parental-leave-could-be-tony-abbotts-biggest-backflip-yet-20150511-ggyl9j.html">Prime Minister Tony Abbott touted</a> only a few months ago!</p>
<h2>Why the package is unfair and impractical</h2>
<p>There are other serious flaws in the <a href="https://theconversation.com/childcare-package-neither-bold-or-sustainable-41082">childcare proposals</a>, which fail political, fairness and practical tests. To name a few:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The proposed subsidy changes (A$30 per week on average) may marginally increase affordability for current users but won’t necessarily increase “workforce participation rates” greatly. This is because the policy fails to address non-fee-related reasons for gaps in the supply of services including few services for unprofitable age groups (the under-threes); fewer places in high-cost areas/locations; lack of flexible hours; and local centre waiting lists.</p></li>
<li><p>The policy fails to recognise the problem of the lack of jobs, particularly those with the flexibility needed by parents who wish to enter the workforce. There is an imbalance of <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/6354.0Main+Features1Feb%202015?OpenDocument">150,000 vacancies</a> versus <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats%5Cabs@.nsf/mediareleasesbyCatalogue/46DFE12FCDB783D9CA256B740082AA6C?Opendocument">770,000 job seekers</a>.</p></li>
<li><p>The government cuts to paid parental leave will mean higher demand for baby care, unless parents get a nanny.</p></li>
<li><p>We are now well below most <a href="http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/PF2_1_Parental_leave_systems_1May2014.pdf">OECD countries</a> in funded parental leave, and many big employers may decide to stop picking up what should be government-funded (as the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/may/10/ending-double-dipping-on-parental-leave-unlikely-to-save-money-business-group">already predicted</a>).</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Are the changes likely to happen? The government has set up barriers that suggest it isn’t seriously committed to the package. Its condition for implementing the childcare changes is the unlikely Senate passing of last year’s <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/federal-budget/federal-budget-2014-greatest-family-tax-benefit-sting-in-threshold-for-part-b-20140513-388dh.html">Family Tax Benefit Part B changes</a>. These are particularly nasty, as they remove payments to sole parents and sole-earner couples once their youngest child turns six.</p>
<p>This is the last policy recognition of more traditional families. Such cuts to single-earner couples will <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-11/childcare-package-overlooks-stay-at-home-parents-nationals-say/6459020">not be popular with the Nationals</a> and remaining conservatives in the Liberals. Despite changes over the past decade or more, which normalised paid work for almost all parents, these last changes are likely to re-open old differences between women. Those in paid jobs support the paid worker push and those not in paid work object to their children’s exclusion from subsidies.</p>
<p>Already, there is talk from the Nationals about income splitting for single-income couples to recognise they have only one tax threshold. These current policies also ignore the job pressures and contribution of time that most mothers and a few fathers make to meet children’s needs. Most parents also contribute considerable volunteer time – in schools, junior sport and elsewhere – which is not recognised in the package.</p>
<p>The earlier announcement of the unnecessary <a href="http://scottmorrison.dss.gov.au/media-releases/246-million-nanny-pilot-programme-to-support-families-in-work">trial nanny program</a> – an existing program is already operating and could be expanded – suggests the newer version will have fewer supervision and skill requirements. The risks of exploitation of workers and poorer quality of care have not been addressed.</p>
<p>The two-year delay in the introduction of the child-care package also raises questions. This leaves lots of time for further undermining of the community aspects of care and cost-cutting. The starting date will be after the next election, so it may not proceed in any recognisable form.</p>
<h2>Savings to fund package open to negotiation</h2>
<p>The <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2015/may/11/senate-pushes-back-on-childcare-changes-ahead-of-budget-politics-live#block-554ffc30e4b022027795c7c5">prime minister’s responses</a> on Monday to questions following the announcement of the package were revealing.</p>
<p><strong>Q:</strong> What would you say to the 80,000 mothers and fathers who are told that they won’t be able to access the full paid parental leave scheme that they previously were able to access under the budget? And how can you justify the fact that you’re now cutting access to paid parental leave when you went to two elections with your signature policy of a rolled gold paid parental leave system?</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Abbott:</strong> As you know, the policy that we took to the last election is off the table, and I guess there are all sorts of circumstances that have changed since the last election – certainly circumstances that have changed since the election before – and intelligent governments respond appropriately to circumstances as they evolve.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Under further questioning, Abbott also indicated that the government was open to alternative savings to fund the package:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>This is a good package, a fair package, a package that will be good for families and good for the economy, so it’s socially desirable and economically desirable, but if we’re going to do it we do have to have offsetting savings, and let’s talk about where those offsetting savings must be, but savings there must be if this package is to go forward.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Q:</strong> Some of those families who won’t be better off, for example those who would lose Family Tax Benefit B once their youngest child turns six, what do you say to them? They’ll lose in the budget?</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Abbott:</strong> That’s actually a measure from last year’s budget. It’s not a new measure.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Q:</strong> That needs to be passed to pay for what you’re talking about today?</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Abbott:</strong> It’s one of the measures stalled in the Senate and the point we make is that we can’t go ahead with the child-care initiatives with the “Jobs for Families” package unless we get offsetting savings. We’re prepared to talk to the Labor Party and the crossbench about where these savings will be found but savings must be found for this to go ahead.</p>
</blockquote><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41608/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Eva Cox does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Lost in the political debate about subsidising child care is the fact that universal free preschool care has been abandoned as a goal of good social policy.Eva Cox, Professorial Fellow Jumbunna IHL, University of Technology SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/320042014-09-23T05:21:49Z2014-09-23T05:21:49ZEd Balls risks pushing more families into poverty with child benefit plan<p>Ed Balls has kicked off the annual Labour conference in Manchester with an ill-judged announcement that his party would <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29301289">increase child benefits by just 1% a year</a> until 2017 if elected to government next year.</p>
<p>Labour needs to convince the electorate that it is serious about getting the deficit down and this is symbolic of that intention but to nominate child benefit as the first cut seems deliberately provocative. Balls risks losing the support of mothers, women and families as well as those concerned with poverty and inequality in British society at a time when a mountain of evidence shows that the coalition government’s austerity measures since 2010 have been particularly unfair to households with children and especially poor children. </p>
<p>Child benefit is £20.50 per week for the first child and £13.55 for the second and subsequent children. The system replaced the family allowance in the late 1970s and, by April 1979, was worth 9% of average earnings for a two-child family. But the benefits were left to wither on the vine by the Thatcher and Major governments, falling to 5.3% of average earnings by 1998. </p>
<p>Gordon Brown rescued child benefits in his 1999 budget as part of the child poverty strategy but, as soon as the coalition came to power in 2010, it froze the benefit for four years and said it would be increased by 1% rather than in line with inflation for three subsequent years. Families are getting around £6 less per week than they did in 2010 as a result.</p>
<p>There is no doubt that whoever wins the next election will need to continue to tackle the deficit. But it was hoped that a Labour government might approach the problem more fairly, as it did between 2008 and 2010. Fairness would imply a better balance between cuts to spending and increases in taxation instead of following the path taken by the coalition, which has been to carry out around <a href="http://users.ox.ac.uk/%7Echri3110/Details/Austerity_JRSM.pdf">85% of its deficit-reduction by cutting spending</a> rather than raising taxes. Fairness would also require achieving a better balance between the poor and the rich and between pensioners and children. </p>
<p>Last year the <a href="http://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/content/publications/content_676">Children’s Commissioner for England</a> undertook a detailed evaluation of the impact of the austerity measures on children and concluded that families with children were losing a greater share of their income than those without. The most vulnerable families with children were losing proportionally the most.</p>
<p>Then, the <a href="http://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/force_download.php?fp=%2Fclient_assets%2Fcp%2Fpublication%2F676%2FA_Child_Rights_Impact_Assessment_of_Budget_Decisions.pdf">Equality and Human Rights Commission</a> published an analysis that showed the same. Couples with children, lone parents and those with the lowest incomes have had the biggest percentage reduction in their net disposable incomes since 2010.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/59721/original/hhrngycr-1411395373.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/59721/original/hhrngycr-1411395373.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/59721/original/hhrngycr-1411395373.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=348&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59721/original/hhrngycr-1411395373.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=348&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59721/original/hhrngycr-1411395373.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=348&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59721/original/hhrngycr-1411395373.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=437&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59721/original/hhrngycr-1411395373.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=437&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59721/original/hhrngycr-1411395373.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=437&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Combined impact of tax and welfare reforms as percentage of net household income according to family type.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Equality and Human Rights Commission</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The report also showed that if services cuts were added into the mix, it was still couples with children, lone parents and elderly singles that were experiencing the biggest cuts.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/59722/original/9zrrn6vm-1411395498.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/59722/original/9zrrn6vm-1411395498.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/59722/original/9zrrn6vm-1411395498.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=343&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59722/original/9zrrn6vm-1411395498.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=343&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59722/original/9zrrn6vm-1411395498.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=343&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59722/original/9zrrn6vm-1411395498.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=431&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59722/original/9zrrn6vm-1411395498.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=431&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59722/original/9zrrn6vm-1411395498.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=431&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Combined impact of tax, welfare and other public spending changes as a proportion of total household living standards (net income plus the value of public services in the base year) by family type.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Equality and Human Rights Commission</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The nominal disposable income of families with children has been falling since 2009-10. Pensioner incomes, on the other hand, have continued to rise and have been protected by the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25609485">triple lock</a> – which guarantees pensions will increase either in line with prices, earnings or by 2.5% per year, depending on which is higher. So in 2014, the basic pension increased by 2.7% while child benefit went up by 1%. The real living standards of families with children have fallen as price inflation has exceeded income growth in every year for the last six years in part because of the freeze in child benefit.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/59723/original/9t6cvknh-1411395945.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/59723/original/9t6cvknh-1411395945.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/59723/original/9t6cvknh-1411395945.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=282&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59723/original/9t6cvknh-1411395945.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=282&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59723/original/9t6cvknh-1411395945.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=282&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59723/original/9t6cvknh-1411395945.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=355&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59723/original/9t6cvknh-1411395945.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=355&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59723/original/9t6cvknh-1411395945.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=355&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Mean equivalent net disposable income £ per annum.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The coalition’s failure to increase child benefit and benefits for people of working age in line with real-world prices is precisely why all the progress of the Labour government in reducing child poverty is being swept away. The policy is unjust, short-sighted and in the long term very costly.</p>
<p>To hear Ed Balls stride out with this as his flagship pre-election promise is alarming. It is not the first thing a Labour shadow chancellor should do. It’s quite possibly the very last thing Balls should do.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/32004/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jonathan Bradshaw is affiliated with Child Poverty Action Group. He has received funding from DWP, Department for Communities and Local Government, European Commission, ESRC, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, The Children's Society, UNICEF, Jacobs Foundation.</span></em></p>Ed Balls has kicked off the annual Labour conference in Manchester with an ill-judged announcement that his party would increase child benefits by just 1% a year until 2017 if elected to government next…Jonathan Bradshaw, Professor of Social Policy, University of YorkLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/289902014-07-09T16:37:26Z2014-07-09T16:37:26ZHuman rights case against welfare reforms keeps growing<p>On July 5, the Daily Mail mounted yet another attack on the pesky human rights folk who have the temerity to question the coalition government’s welfare agenda.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2681313/The-Brazil-Nut-strikes-IDS-anger-former-Marxist-Raquel-Rolnik-attacks-benefit-cuts.html">article</a>, headlined “The Brazil Nut strikes again: IDS anger as former Marxist Raquel Rolnik attacks his benefit cuts”, featured the same ignorance and thinly veiled racism that marked the Daily Mail’s <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2419592/UN-Inspector-Raquel-Rolnik-stayed-300-night-hotel.html">coverage</a> of <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/11/bedroom-tax-should-be-axed-says-un-investigator">Rolnik’s 2013 visit</a> to the UK as UN special rapporteur on the right to adequate housing. </p>
<p>That visit was marked by a series of highly personal attacks, in which Grant Shapps, the <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2418204/Raquel-Rolnik-A-dabbler-witchcraft-offered-animal-sacrifice-Marx.html">Mail</a> and others attempted both to blacken Rolnik’s name and to suggest her visit was somehow illicit or unexpected by the government. This was later <a href="http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/un-says-expert-acted-within-rules/6528791.article">refuted</a> by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.</p>
<p>This time round, the Daily Mail was complaining about “a bizarre attack on the Coalition’s welfare reforms” by Rolnik and two other UN-appointed independent experts: the special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights and the special rapporteur on the right to food. </p>
<p>Special rapporteurs are mandated by the <a href="http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/HRCIndex.aspx">UN Human Rights Council</a> to report and advise on human rights from a thematic or country-specific perspective. In this 22-page letter, according to the Mail, “they claim that cuts introduced to tackle the huge budget deficit left by Labour may break Britain’s international treaty obligations to the poor.”</p>
<p>However feverish the Daily Mail’s nationalist outrage, this is hardly a bolt from the blue. </p>
<h2>Unmet obligations</h2>
<p>After her visit to the UK, Rolnik issued a <a href="http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=13706&LangID=E">press statement</a> including initial recommendations and then a final <a href="http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Housing/Pages/CountryVisits.aspx">report</a> (presented to the UN Human Rights Council) that set out a range of concerns about the compliance of welfare reform with the UK’s human rights obligations. The special rapporteurs on the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/02/19/food-poverty-un-special-rapporteur-olivier-de-schutter-banks-austerity_n_2714969.html">right to food</a> and <a href="http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G11/118/72/PDF/G1111872.pdf?OpenElement">extreme poverty and human rights</a> have also previously raised human rights alarms about the UK’s approach to social security. </p>
<p>Such worries have not been limited to the UN; the human rights effects of welfare reform and other austerity measures have been criticised by a range of European human rights bodies, including the <a href="http://www.enetenglish.gr/resources/article-files/prems162913_gbr_1700_safeguardinghumanrights_web.pdf">Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights</a> and the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/professor-aoife-nolan/welfare-reform-social-rights_b_4692742.html">European Committee of Social Rights</a>.</p>
<p>The Daily Mail quotes Iain Duncan Smith arguing that the rapporteurs’ letter is “riddled with faulty logic”, accusing the authors of</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[talking] down our country, criticising the action we’ve taken to get control of the public finances and create a fairer more prosperous Britain … They simply do not have a clue – and we will not be taking lessons from a group of unelected commentators who can’t get their facts straight.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>However, far from being dreamed up out of nowhere, the Daily Mail reported that the letter states:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We would like to bring to your government’s attention information we have received concerning the … impact of reductions in public expenditure, in particular to social security, to an adequate standard of living…and to equality and non-discrimination, especially for people living in poverty.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In the letter, the Special Rapporteurs apparently highlight that “according to concerned sources”, the Government’s austerity measures could amount to backward steps that are prohibited by a UN human rights treaty, the <a href="http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CESCR.aspx">International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights</a>, to which the UK signed up in 1974.</p>
<p>Far from being an uninformed assault on the UK’s proud welfare record, the letter is a considered response to <a href="http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Food/Pages/Complaints.aspx">information</a> contained in a <a href="http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/chr/special/communications.htm">communication</a> on alleged or actual human rights violations that was submitted to the rapporteurs. </p>
<p>Crucially, in terms of UN guidelines, such communications will not be considered by special rapporteurs if they are obviously politically motivated, anonymous or solely based on media reports. Communications must identify the alleged victims, the date and location of the incident, and a detailed description of the circumstances of any incident in which alleged violations took place.</p>
<p>And here is the nub for Iain Duncan Smith: there is mounting home-grown evidence that the the special rapporteurs’ concerns are well-founded.</p>
<h2>Home-grown resistance</h2>
<p>The past two years have seen an explosion of reports highlighting concerns about the implications of welfare cuts and changes for society’s most marginalised and disadvantaged. A wide range of bodies, including the <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/joint-select/human-rights-committee/news/independent-living-report/">Joint Committee on Human Rights</a>, the <a href="http://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/content/publications/content_555">Children’s Commissioner for England</a> and the <a href="http://www.scottishhumanrights.com/publications/journal/article/issue62feature">Scottish Human Rights Commission</a>, have exposed and detailed the damage that welfare reform has done, is doing, and is going to do in human rights terms.</p>
<p>A recent <a href="http://just-fair.co.uk/hub/single/dignity_and_opportunity_for_all/">report</a> by British human rights campaign group Just Fair <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/07/uk-sleepwalking-violating-disabled-peoples-human-rights-charities">highlights</a> a range of ways in which welfare reform has negatively impacted upon the human rights of disabled people, causing hardship, despair and – in some cases – destitution. </p>
<p>Echoing the information sent to the special rapporteurs, the Just Fair report concludes that there clear evidence that the UK is failing to meet a range of its obligations under the <a href="http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CESCR.aspx">International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights</a> and the <a href="http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=150">UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities</a>: “These include the government’s obligation to avoid impermissible backward steps in terms of giving effect to the rights to work, social security, social protection and an adequate standard of living.” </p>
<p>The report also expresses great concern that the UK does not always meet its minimum core obligations to disabled people, failing to ensure a level of social security and social protection sufficient to provide basic food and shelter.</p>
<h2>No sympathy</h2>
<p>Far from “not having a clue”, it is safe to assume that the special rapporteurs have a very good idea of the human rights impacts of welfare reform, both as a result of their own work and the information sent to them by people working within the UK to monitor the impact of austerity.</p>
<p>Iain Duncan Smith dismissed the special rapporteurs’ letter as an “absurd and unwarranted intervention”. It is extremely unlikely that those on the hard end of welfare reform – <a href="http://just-fair.co.uk/hub/single/dignity_and_opportunity_for_all/">disabled people</a>, <a href="" title="http://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/children-in-an-age-of-austerity-the-impact-of-welfare-reform-on-children-in-nottingham/">families with children</a>, <a href="http://www.wbg.org.uk/other-resources/impact-of-austerity/">women</a> – would agree with him. Certainly those in the UK who are holding welfare reform to a human rights standard do not. Why should the UN?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/28990/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alice Donald is affiliated with Just Fair (as a Trustee).</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Aoife Nolan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>On July 5, the Daily Mail mounted yet another attack on the pesky human rights folk who have the temerity to question the coalition government’s welfare agenda. The article, headlined “The Brazil Nut strikes…Aoife Nolan, Professor of International Human Rights Law, University of NottinghamAlice Donald, Senior Research Fellow in Law, Middlesex UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/220172014-01-20T11:18:55Z2014-01-20T11:18:55ZWicks leak was a courageous act which saved child benefit<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/39415/original/7gqx2f36-1390215240.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Incognito: Wicks's leaks saved two generations billions in child benefit.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Anthony Devlin/PA</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The children of this country owe a debt of gratitude to Malcolm Wicks, who died last year. If you have ever benefited from child benefit, you have him to thank.</p>
<p>While Wicks was dying he wrote a memoir, which has now been published by his family. In one of the chapters, he <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/19/child-benefit-malcolm-wicks-autobiography">reveals</a> that he was “Deep Throat”. This was the name given by Frank Field, then director of the <a href="http://www.cpag.org.uk/">Child Poverty Action Group</a>, to the person who leaked the cabinet minutes on child benefit in 1976. </p>
<p>These revealed that the then prime minister, James Callaghan and his chancellor, Dennis Healey, had tried to force the abandonment of child benefit. CPAG had been campaigning for child benefit since 1967; it had been a manifesto commitment in 1974, and the Child Benefit Act had already been passed in 1975. A series of articles published in New Society based on the leaked material resulted in a huge political furore, which rescued the scheme. As a result, child benefit began to be payable in 1977.</p>
<p>Without the leak, it is very unlikely child benefit would ever have existed. Mrs Thatcher was elected in 1979 with a commitment to rolling back the welfare state, and although she did not abolish child benefit, she froze it for four years from 1987. It continued to wither on the vine throughout the Tory years before being rescued by the Blair government in <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2000/sep/26/labourconference.labour8">2000</a>. </p>
<p>Malcolm Wicks can therefore be given the credit for 37 years of financial aid to mothers and children – an enormous contribution to the relief of child poverty and to child well-being. I have estimated (see below) that since it started, the policy he saved has been worth between £73 billion and £288 billion to families with children.</p>
<p>Leaking the documents was a hugely courageous act. The government was outraged that their shenanigans had been exposed to all and sundry; the cabinet secretary was ordered to find the culprit and, when he failed, the head of Special Branch who “always got his man” was set to search him out. But Wicks, then a policy analyst in the Urban Deprivation Unit in the Home office, was never identified. He went on to establish the <a href="http://www.spsw.ox.ac.uk/fileadmin/static/fpsc/index.htm">Family Policy Studies Centre</a>, become Labour MP for Croydon Central and served as a senior minister in the Blair and Brown governments. He wrote: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Was I right to leak the cabinet papers? I still think I was. In the normal course of events civil servants, ministers and special advisers should not leak confidential material. It goes without saying that matters relating to national security have to be heavily safeguarded. But regarding the introduction of child benefit there was, I felt, a moral issue. It simply could not be right that ministers, at the most senior level, should manipulate internal discussions in such a way that the cabinet itself was misled. I thought – and still think – that in those circumstances it was justifiable to leak or, putting it more positively, to let the wider public know what was going on.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Estimating the benefit</h2>
<p>Child benefit was enacted in 1975 and phased in between April 1977 and April 1979. In 1977, it was paid at £1.50 per week per child, replacing family allowances paid at the rate of £1.50 for the second and subsequent child and child tax allowances paid in respect of each child of a taxpayer. The value of child tax allowance varied with the child’s age and parental income; it was worth more for higher rate taxpayers and nothing for non-taxpayers. In April 1977 child tax allowance was worth £1.94 per week for a standard rate taxpayer with a child under 11.</p>
<p>Child benefit was first paid in April 1977 at the rate of £1.50 a week for the first and subsequent child. In real terms, that would be £7.96 a week in April 2012. For a two child family, this was 4.2% of average earnings. It was fully phased in (and the child tax allowance fully phased out) by April 1979 at the rate of £4.00 per week per child, or £17.96 in April 2012 prices, and was then worth 9% of average earnings for a two child family.</p>
<p>Today, child benefit is paid at the rate of £20.30 a week for the first child and £13.40 per week for the second and subsequent child. For a two child family in April 2012, that was worth 5.5% of average earnings.</p>
<p>To estimate the net benefit of child benefit over the subsequent years, one really needs to be able to predict what would have happened to family allowances and child tax allowances if child benefit had not been introduced. That is not possible. </p>
<p>Before child benefit there had been no family allowance for the first child, and the child tax allowance that had been worth £1.94 for a standard rate tax payer with a child under 11 had been phased out. So the net benefit was £2.06 per week per family, or £107 per family per year (£543 today). Over a childhood of 17 years that is £9231 (though actually child benefit is paid up to 19 for those in education). In 2012 there were <a href="http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/child-geog-stats/chb-geog-aug12.pdf">7.92 million families with children</a> – so in current terms, child benefit for the first child benefits all families to the tune of roughly £73 billion.</p>
<p>A less modest claim is that currently child benefit transfers £11.4 billion each year in favour of families with children for 13.8 million children, which is an average of £826 per child per year. Over a 17 year receipt it is £14,042 per child in current terms. Two 17 year long generations of children have lived since 1979. Therefore, £14,042 x 2 x 13.8 million children, £388 billion has been transferred in respect of children since child benefit started.</p>
<p>Inexact though they are, these sums show the huge extent to which this nearly abolished policy has helped British families – and by the same token, the magnitude of Malcolm Wicks’s legacy.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/22017/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jonathan Bradshaw does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The children of this country owe a debt of gratitude to Malcolm Wicks, who died last year. If you have ever benefited from child benefit, you have him to thank. While Wicks was dying he wrote a memoir…Jonathan Bradshaw, Professor of Social Policy, University of YorkLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/163792013-07-25T05:06:53Z2013-07-25T05:06:53ZShort of cash, rent and food – Britons in dire financial straits<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/28015/original/v3jv37wb-1374687346.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Even on sale, payday loans are getting us into more financial trouble.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">PA</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Britain is currently experiencing its longest and deepest economic slump in a century. But through <a href="http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/financial-inclusion-report">new research</a> we’re only just beginning to realise quite how dramatic the impact of this recession has been on UK residents. </p>
<p>To further our understanding of the challenges faced by many in the UK today, my colleague Stephen McKay and I have analysed large-scale government surveys as well as a new poll of the general public carried out last month by Ipsos/MORI. </p>
<p>We found that people are struggling to buy basic goods, raise cash in emergencies and even stay in their homes. In order to prevent further hardship, the government needs to act now. </p>
<p>Around 2.5 million people have been out of work since 2008 and, among those in work, <a href="https://theconversation.com/should-we-really-be-boasting-about-the-british-jobs-market-14184">earnings have been falling</a> or stagnating for some years. In 2012, the real value of workers’ wages fell back to 2003 levels, following several years of pay freezes and economic restructuring. </p>
<p>In addition, one in 10 workers is “<a href="http://ner.sagepub.com/content/224/1/F8.full.pdf+html">underemployed</a>”. Such people are in work, but either wish to work more hours in their current role, or are looking for an additional or replacement job with more hours. </p>
<h2>Less spending, more lending</h2>
<p>As incomes are falling, the price of basic goods such as fuel and food are rising, placing enormous pressures on families to make ends meet. Our research shows that over half the population is reducing its spending in 2013. One in 10 of those who are in manual work or out of work is even cutting back on basic food items. </p>
<p>In 2010/11, 12% of households was finding it either quite or very difficult to manage financially, and a further 27% was “just about getting by”. These levels have increased since the early 2000s, and at least half of those on the lowest incomes (those in the bottom third of income distribution) were finding it difficult to manage financially, or were just about getting by.</p>
<p>There are already indications that people are borrowing more to make ends meet, but this is causing them further difficulties as they have to find the money to repay their debts. Non-mortgage borrowing - unsecured credit - increased by 10% from <a href="http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/was/wealth-in-great-britain/main-results-from-the-wealth-and-assets-survey-2006-2008/index.html">2006/8</a> to <a href="http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/was/wealth-in-great-britain-wave-2/2008-2010--part-3-/report--wealth-in-great-britain-wave-2--part-3-.html">2008/10</a>, and nearly one in five borrowers found these commitments “a heavy burden”. In this period, the amount of households where repayments on unsecured borrowing were over 25% of income more than doubled.</p>
<p>All of this means that people have very little capacity to meet unexpected expenses, even relatively small ones. About one in five of the population said they would have to borrow money if he or she needed £200 at short notice – either through a formal loan like a credit card, overdraft or personal loan, or through an informal loan from family or friends. Just under one in 10 people said that they would not be able to find this money at all. </p>
<h2>A nationwide debt crisis</h2>
<p>The consequences of these pressures on household finances can be quite extreme. In 2008/9, around 7% of households had entered into one of the statutory or informal actions on debt, including bankruptcy, individual voluntary arrangement (IVA) or debt management plans (DMP). </p>
<p>Some people even lost their homes. The number of properties taken into possession over time increased markedly from under 10,000 in 2003 to a peak of just under 50,000 in 2009. Numbers have subsequently fallen, due to a combination of factors including low interest rates and an increase in “forbearance”, where banks and borrowers agree to temporarily delay repossession. </p>
<p>But evictions from rented properties showed a different trend, with claims for possession increasing to around 10,000 in 2013. Recent changes affecting housing benefit will only make things worse. The overall benefits cap, the “bedroom tax” and the direct payment of housing benefit to claimants rather than landlords under universal credit all add to the expectation that evictions may rise still further. </p>
<h2>Holding the government to account</h2>
<p>Many of the most recent reforms of the social security system have yet to make an impact, so the nation’s poorest are about to be hit even harder. Benefits will no longer keep pace with inflation due to the caps on annual increases in benefit amounts. </p>
<p>Already, means-tested benefits fail to meet a minimum income standard. According to our report, current benefits only provide a single unemployed person with 38% of the income required to maintain acceptable living standards. And for a couple with two children, benefits would only give them 58% of what they need.</p>
<p>The government wants to encourage people into work, but wages are so low that in-work poverty is a major problem. There are more children experiencing poverty in working families than in non-working families. The problems highlighted by our research are not just related to the current recession but to long-term declines in the value of wages, and to cuts in the social security system. </p>
<p>We need a living wage and a social security system which do what it says on the tin: provide security for all in our society. Those on the lowest incomes - whether they are in work or not - do not have much of a cushion to fall back on. The consequences of recent reforms are likely to be extremely serious unless the government takes action to better support those who are struggling to make ends meet.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/16379/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Karen Rowlingson receives funding from
Friends Provident Foundation
Arts and Humanities Research Council
Leverhulme Trust</span></em></p>Britain is currently experiencing its longest and deepest economic slump in a century. But through new research we’re only just beginning to realise quite how dramatic the impact of this recession has…Karen Rowlingson, Professor of Social Policy, University of BirminghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/158282013-07-08T05:33:47Z2013-07-08T05:33:47ZDigital welfare only deepens the class divide<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/26983/original/27x2826d-1373026202.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Regrets may lie ahead in the switch to the universal credit.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Karl Ludwig G Poggemann</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The introduction of the universal credit will change the face of benefit and welfare services for families all over the country. By making assumptions about digital literacy levels, the government is putting safety and security at risk. </p>
<p>The reformed benefits system, through which the different types of benefit currently provided by the state will be rolled into one single payment, is due to start taking effect in October, with the aim of moving the majority of benefits claimants to the new system by 2015-16. The policy is problematic not only because it takes responsibility away from the state and transfers it to the individual benefit claimant, but because it is based on a flawed understanding of <a href="http://www.communitiesandculture.org/files/2013/04/Sussex-scoping-report.pdf">digital literacy</a>.</p>
<p>Central to the universal credit system is the shift from the idea of “digital when appropriate” to “digital by default”. The government is pushing for this approach after finding that 78% of existing claimants <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/181395/uc-local-service-support-framework.pdf">already use the internet</a> and therefore concluding that the move to pay benefits directly into bank accounts is both feasible and logical.</p>
<p>In fact, as the academic literature will tell you, use is a far cry from literacy. Even young people have been <a href="http://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/free_download/9780262524834_Youth_Identity_and_Digital_Media.pdf">shown</a> to use the internet only in banal and routine ways, often encountering problems simply getting to grips with search engines. If the part of the population we most often assume to be technology-savvy is not using the internet to carry out complex tasks, it is worrying to think that benefits claimants of all ages are to be expected to carry out their financial dealings online and that they, not the government, will be accountable when things go wrong. </p>
<p>Reforming the benefits system will not make the digitally excluded suddenly digitally included, it will exacerbate the digital divide and turn it into a class divide, a geographical divide, an age divide and a gender divide.</p>
<p>Use of the internet for particular social relations and again bears little resemblance to the skills and knowledge needed for online banking. This poses security risks not only in case of phone theft, but also because apps that have not been endorsed by the Department for Work and Pensions are beginning to appear on the market. These include the <a href="http://policyinpractice.co.uk/universal-credit-calculator/">Universal Credit Calculator</a>, an app which asks for a range of information about you, your benefit claims, income and local authority area.</p>
<p>To have an online bank account requires sustained interaction online. Passwords and website addresses need to be remembered, access needs to be simple and secure. For the sections of the population most reliant on benefits, these are major barriers. Where will people access online banking if routers are not commonplace in homes, and public libraries are being closed down? How will they access e-banking if, as members of our local council in Leeds told us, many urban areas still have black spots where internet connection is not supported? Who will be responsible for the provision of routers after Universal Credit is enacted – the tenant or the landlord? And given that most people will see benefit payments stay the same, or decrease – how will routers, smart phones, laptops, PCs be paid for?</p>
<p>We may struggle to make a clear assessment of how big these problems are. The collapse of the entire spectrum of benefit payments into one single universal credit system means that benefits claimants from all backgrounds are bundled together into one big group. Removing the distinction between unemployment benefit and child credit, for example, places middle-class families who have technology at their fingertips alongside working-class families who don’t. </p>
<p>For most working mothers, the child tax credit will be part of the universal credit scheme. The government can use this switch to grouping benefits claimants all together to its advantage. Welfare reform minister David Freud has reasoned that because 75% of the employed population are already paid directly into their bank account, the move to paying benefits in the same way is but a “small change”.</p>
<p>Indeed, for the middle-class employed sectors of the population who will shortly find themselves claiming universal credit, the change will be small. For large parts of the population that claim benefits, it will be a much more significant step. But we will find it much harder to make the distinction. The heaping of all kinds of benefit claimants into one system has skewed the statistics – making those populations most affected seem more insignificant, making the numbers of digital literate seem larger, making the impacts of the changes seems smaller. </p>
<p>The universal credit system does not operate in a vacuum. It sits alongside welfare reforms, austerity measures and localism policies. From domestic and family relations, to the way an individual interacts with their neighbour, landlord, employer, job centre, or support worker: the lived realities of communities are changing forever. It is for these reasons, as well as the oversimplified claims about digital literacy upon which this reform is tenuously built, that the <a href="http://www.communitiesandculture.org/">Communities and Culture Network+</a> is investigating the impact of these reforms on communities across the UK. We are working with local council, local community organisations and local communities themselves to first understand the full impact of these reforms, and second work towards a solution – be that social, digital, or political. It is important that those already losing out in the digital age don’t see their finances or wellbeing threatened by the universal credit.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/15828/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Helen Thornham receives funding from EPSRC, ESRC. She is affiliated with the University of Leeds.</span></em></p>The introduction of the universal credit will change the face of benefit and welfare services for families all over the country. By making assumptions about digital literacy levels, the government is putting…Helen Thornham, Research Fellow in Transformation of Media, University of LeedsLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/155262013-06-25T12:05:40Z2013-06-25T12:05:40ZStrong support for role of state in enforcing child maintenance<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/26167/original/d2b562f9-1372159064.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Single parents are being left to their own devices.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Flickr/stephanski</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In most countries children in lone parent families are at increased risk of experiencing poverty. In 2011, the proportion of lone parents below the poverty line in EU countries reached 33.5%, compared with an overall poverty rate of 16.8%. </p>
<p>One means of tackling this high poverty rate, in addition to increased employment, is through the payment of maintenance from ex-partners when families separate. However this is something that the UK has long struggled to facilitate with any consistency.</p>
<h2>Administrative failures</h2>
<p>The introduction of the Child Support Agency (CSA) in 1993 was supposed to turn around a situation where too few lone parents received child support. Instead, it has become a byword for administrative failure. A number of subsequent reforms tried to streamline administration processes and simplify the assessment formula. These efforts met with some success, but largely failed to achieve the desired step change in numbers receiving child maintenance.</p>
<p>In most countries, the collection of child support is also used to offset any safety net benefits being paid to low income families. That used to be the case in the UK, and was part of the rationale for reform in the 1990s. This led to organisations such as the <a href="http://www.cpag.org.uk/">Child Poverty Action Group</a> condemning the government for putting the Treasury before children.</p>
<h2>Reforming the role of the state</h2>
<p>This was changed in 2010 so that recipients keep all of their child support, rather than seeing it used to reduce benefit payments – and parents looking after children have no obligation to take forward an application. Whilst these changes may be seen to be to the advantage of low income parents, in practice it means that government has no direct financial interest in being involved in the successful payment of maintenance.</p>
<p>This lack of financial interest, plus a general concern to reduce state spending (the CSA previously costing over £½ billion a year to run), and a feeling that the best arrangements would be achieved if parents could come to their own agreements, has led to the gradual reduction of the state’s role in assessing and collecting maintenance. </p>
<p>Under recent reforms, parents may seek advice and check online guidance on child support, but the expectation is that they will be able to agree on how much child maintenance will flow between them. Those needing state assistance will pay handsomely in terms of an initial charge, plus ongoing fees that affect both the payer and the recipient.</p>
<h2>The public have their say</h2>
<p>In <a href="http://www.natcen.ac.uk/media/1114592/bsa30_childmaintenance%20-%20final.pdf">research published this week</a> with a number of colleagues for the <a href="http://www.natcen.ac.uk/study/british-social-attitudes-30th-report">British Social Attitudes 30th Report</a>, we see how far this move towards private arrangements is supported by the British public. </p>
<p>Given how many parents are affected by family break-down, many will either have direct experience of the child maintenance system, or know people who have. We also looked at how the public think that the level of child support should be assessed, something which is surprisingly rare.</p>
<p>The findings are stark. Whilst some people were unsure how to respond, some 60% thought that the law should be setting a minimum amount for child maintenance, rather than leaving it to parents to decide. Only 17% disagreed with this view. </p>
<p>There was also strong support for the thought that the state should be using the law to enforce child maintenance obligations. Only 20% of the public believed that the law should never force fathers who are not living with their children to pay child maintenance, compared with 59% who disagreed. </p>
<p>These views tended to hold across the political spectrum, and among those of differing incomes and educational backgrounds. Parents at the sharp end of policy decisions – those who have an obligation to pay child maintenance – were only a little less likely than others to favour government involvement. Almost twice as many people supported a role for government as those who opposed it.</p>
<p>An underlying issue in setting rates of child support is the extent to which it should be about children sharing in the living standard of the absent parent, as opposed to just keeping children out of poverty. Under the current scheme, parents living apart from children pay a set percentage of their income based on the number of children being supported, with a reduction for any overnight stays. </p>
<p>The amounts of maintenance believed by most people to be suitable go beyond the current levels, except for some poorer fathers. In short, child maintenance was seen to be set at too low a level. People believed that payments should aim beyond reducing poverty, and there was also a reluctance to reduce child maintenance levels for a limited amount of overnight care.</p>
<h2>What’s next?</h2>
<p>The CSA has been subject to strong lobbying from many parents, and others, concerned at its apparent inability to deploy its far-reaching powers and achieve regular payment of maintenance. Only relatively small amounts of benefit payments were ever reclaimed, and in recent years that clawback has ended. Effects on reducing child poverty appear to have been muted.</p>
<p>The next phase of reform will see a continued decline in the role of the state, and a greater emphasis on parents coming to their own arrangements. Recent changes to legal aid also reduce the support available for going to court on family matters. When it comes to arranging child support after relationships break down, many low income families may feel that they are largely on their own during one of the more stressful periods of their lives.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/15526/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen McKay has previously received funding from the Department for Work and Pensions covering child support issues, including research quoted in the Henshaw review of child support. He also received funding from the Nuffield Foundation, which paid for the research behind this report.
</span></em></p>In most countries children in lone parent families are at increased risk of experiencing poverty. In 2011, the proportion of lone parents below the poverty line in EU countries reached 33.5%, compared…Stephen McKay, Professor in Social Research, University of LincolnLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/142572013-05-15T20:04:56Z2013-05-15T20:04:56ZMiddle class welfare – are we hitting the target?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/23794/original/mdpj3t24-1368581264.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">No more Baby Bonus: Labor has further tightened family payments to rein in expenditure, but the danger is low-income families will feel it most.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>When it comes to welfare spending in the budget, the federal government has given with one hand and taken with another.</p>
<p>Funding for support of disability services (NDIS) and schools the (Gonski reforms) has been locked in - partly at the expense of payments to families.</p>
<p>In this budget Labor has continuing tightening the criteria around family payments - often typified as “middle class welfare”. </p>
<p>Certainly middle income families have benefited from a generous system which was expanded by John Howard. But changes to the indexation of family payments may also have the effect of increasing child poverty in the longer run. </p>
<p>Not proceeding with promised increases in family payments foreshadowed in last year’s budget will save A$2.5 billion. Last night’s announcement abolishing the Baby Bonus and replacing it with a smaller, income tested payment, will save about A$1 billion over four years. </p>
<p>Continuing the 2007 indexation pause for family payment income limits and supplements will save an additional A$1.2 billion. Realignment of the time period for reconciliation of family payments will save over A$500 million.</p>
<p>The abolition of the Baby Bonus and continuing freeze on family payment income thresholds follows the restrictive trend which began in 2008 and winds back the largesse of the Howard government.</p>
<p>Income-tested family payments were extended by the Hawke and Keating governments in the 1980s and early 1990s. But in 2000, to partly compensate for the introduction of the GST, John Howard further increased the payments and reduced the targeting of benefits. The families who benefited most were the “Howard battlers” with family incomes between $40,000 and $60,000 a year. But less tight targeting meant that some of these benefits also went further up the income scale.</p>
<p>The consequence was a large increase in spending aimed at families. By 2004, after the introduction of the Baby Bonus, Australia was spending well over 2% of GDP on family allowances and other cash payments to families – one of the highest levels of expenditure in any OECD country. </p>
<p>More than four in five families received a payment, including substantial proportions in the middle income ranges (that is, in the <a href="http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=556711210676386;res=IELBUS">fourth and fifth deciles of family income) </a>paid less in income taxes than they received in cash payments. </p>
<p>Since then, Labor governments under both Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard have engaged in a long term strategy to wind back “middle class welfare”. From 2008, eligibility for Family Tax Benefit Part B (FTB-B), reserved for families with only one earner, was restricted to families where the main earner earned less than $150,000 per year. </p>
<p>In 2009, indexation of FTB was switched from a more generous earnings index to a lower prices index, while some thresholds were frozen at their nominal rates. If these changes had not been made, the base rate would now be more than $10 a week higher, and the higher income test threshold would be over $100,000 a year rather than just over $94,000.</p>
<p>The projected effect of these reforms can be seen in part in successive Intergenerational Reports produced by Treasury, which project steadily declining public expenditure on Family Tax Benefit as a percentage of GDP.</p>
<p>It is therefore no surprise this progressive restriction of FTB to families on low incomes has continued in the current budget, even to the extent that this involves cancelling of previously announced increases to FTB that would have partially compensated for the cutbacks of previous years. </p>
<p>The SchoolKids bonus partly offsets these effects, although not for all families with children, and if the Coalition abolishes this payment if they win office in September, then a majority of families will fall further behind.</p>
<p>For those who value redistribution as a key function of the welfare state, there are considerable dangers in this move. While family payments are often seen as the epitome of “middle class welfare”, the fact is that Australia has one of the most targeted systems of support for children in the OECD, and also <a href="http://www.oecd.org/social/family/38227981.pdf">one of the most effective for reducing child poverty,</a> particularly for low-income working families.</p>
<p>As fewer families find they are eligible to FTB, the system as a whole is likely to lose political support, especially if the government that succeeds the current one in September offers voters a “choice” of maintaining FTB or lower income taxes. </p>
<p>The result may be, as the <a href="http://acoss.org.au/images/uploads/6121.pdf">Australian Council of Social Services (ACOSS) forewarned </a> in 2009 when the indexation of FTB was changed from earnings to prices, increased child poverty and deprivation. As noted above, if the indexation of family payments had not been changed in 2009, the higher rate of payment - received by families on benefits and those in low paid work would now be more than $500 per child per year higher.</p>
<p>In the long run, indexing family payments only to the CPI will have the same effect on family payments as it has had on Newstart, now almost universally recognised as inadequate. At the moment, Australia can boast that <a href="http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/news-events/all-stories/stimulus-shelter-gfc-storm#.UZLSpnI0rz8">child poverty did not appear to increase in the years following the Global Financial Crisis</a>. But it may not be able to hold that boast for much longer.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/14257/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gerry Redmond receives funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Whiteford does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>When it comes to welfare spending in the budget, the federal government has given with one hand and taken with another. Funding for support of disability services (NDIS) and schools the (Gonski reforms…Gerry Redmond, Associate Professor, School of Social and Policy Studies, Flinders UniversityPeter Whiteford, Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/129542013-03-25T03:35:21Z2013-03-25T03:35:21ZRestore the family wage by simplifying the tax system<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/21594/original/8qcv5gr8-1363912254.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C27%2C978%2C602&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A single lump payment and the ability to pool family income should replace the current complicated family tax benefit system.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Flickr/ajusticenetwork</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Two changes are needed to the taxation and family benefits system to improve efficiency and achieve equity between families.</p>
<p>The first step is to replace the current complicated family tax benefit payment schemes with a single lump-sum payment per child.</p>
<p>All existing family allowances, childcare subsidies, maternity allowances and other concessions for children in the current tax transfer system, should be replaced with a uniform, non-means-tested annual taxation concession, such as a tax credit or a cash allowance. If the payment is uniform, every family will receive the same monetary value per child.</p>
<p>The second step is to adopt an optional family-based taxation system. Income splitting, as it is commonly known, involves pooling family income for taxation purposes, with each family unit submitting a single tax return.</p>
<p>Family-based taxation is currently allowed in numerous OECD nations: the United States, France, Germany, Belgium, Greece, Luxembourg, Portugal, Switzerland, Iceland, Ireland, Norway, Poland, and Spain and the Netherlands. The rationale in each country is the same: the household, not the individual, is the basic economic unit of society, so the family should be treated as a single unit for taxation purposes.</p>
<p>There are several arguments for simplifying the tax transfer system. Firstly, the current means-tested tax transfer system, which is designed to alleviate poverty may actually entrench poverty, particularly at low income levels, where the system imposes large penalties for earning extra income.</p>
<p>Secondly, the current system confuses child rearing responsibilities with welfare. A single universal payment would recognise that the difficult work undertaken by parents to rear the next generation is of great benefit to society. The value of this work does not diminish as family income increases, so neither should payments that recognise that work.</p>
<p>Thirdly, the large bureaucratic structure set up to assess each family’s eligibility for tax transfers only exists because the current system is complex. The amount of Family Tax Benefit received is based on a complicated formula that takes into account both individual and family income and is difficult to calculate.</p>
<p>Other payments, such as childcare benefits, are even more complicated and virtually impossible for individuals to assess. This complexity creates a burden for many taxpayers, particularly those with limited English language skills or poor numeracy. In these circumstances, the operation of government programs is anything but transparent and therefore antithetical to good governance.</p>
<p>Finally, and arguably, most compelling of all, simplifying the tax transfer system will reduce the amount of what is known as fiscal churning, a mutually offsetting tax and expenditure flow, or in plain terms, spending tax revenues from someone to provide income and government funded services ‘back’ to that same person.</p>
<p>The main problems with churning are that it is associated with the development of a welfare mind-set that lowers self-esteem and individual responsibility and encourages political rent-seeking.</p>
<p>Churning also distorts economic behaviour via rules associated with both the tax and the transfer related effects, if the net value of the transfer is zero.</p>
<p>Another problem with churning is it requires significant administrative support at all stages of the process, particularly ones that are intrusive and complicated, for example, those that involve means-testing of payments.</p>
<p>Churning, from a purely economic perspective, is undesirable because it is a deadweight loss in that the transfers destroy resources needlessly while producing nothing that citizens can use or enjoy.</p>
<p>The marginal social cost of transferring one extra dollar in the US system may be as high as $3.50, and there is no reason to expect that transfers in Australia will be close to cost-neutral either.</p>
<p>Computer-based systems can reduce the administrative cost of churning by executing simple repetitive tasks efficiently but, unfortunately, the activities that generate the most cost in any business process are difficult to automate.</p>
<p>These activities include ongoing maintenance of highly complex computer systems, dispute resolution, and debt recovery. Simplifying the tax transfer system will help to eliminate these inefficiencies and therefore reduce both churning and the associated cost of administration.</p>
<p>Simplifying transfer rules and rolling transfers, such as family tax benefits, into the taxation system will cut churn dramatically. The existing family payment system already treats the family as a single economic unit, so administering revenue on this basis will merely simplify the existing system. For example, if revenue is family-based, some existing family-based payments could, in principle be abolished because they would be unnecessary.</p>
<p>From the government’s point of view, simplifying the tax transfer system should not just be cost-neutral, but actually provide significant costs savings. The total cost of the tax transfer system, including health and education, is in excess of $250 billion per year. Eliminating even a small proportion of churn from these programs would save hundreds of millions of dollars.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/12954/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen Smith does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Two changes are needed to the taxation and family benefits system to improve efficiency and achieve equity between families. The first step is to replace the current complicated family tax benefit payment…Stephen Smith, Senior Lecturer, Department of Accounting and Finance, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.