force_download.php?fp=/client_assets/cp/publication/676/A_Child_Rights_Impact_Assessment_of_Budget_Decisions

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Whereas the distributional impact of the 2010-15 reforms is roughly flat by family size for lone parents, Figure 2.7 shows that the pattern is different for couples with children: here, larger families lose out more, and lose more than lone parent families with the same number of children unlike smaller families, where the families of lone parents fare worse. This is largely because both benefit and tax credit losses increase as a proportion of income with family size. The average gains from Universal Credit are higher for couples with three or four children than for couples with one or two children but this is not enough to offset the overall negative pattern. Couples with four children lose around 6 percent on average from the reforms, compared with 4 percent for couples with one child. Figure 2.7. Couples with children by number of children: Impacts of tax-benefit reforms in 2010-15 as a percentage of net income Office of the Children’s Commissioner: Child Rights Impact Assessment of Budget Decisions June 2013 32
2.5.5 The impact of tax, tax credit and welfare benefit changes by ethnicity This section looks at whether the reforms have differential impacts on children from different ethnic backgrounds. Figure 2.8 shows the average impacts by ethnic group (defined according to the ethnicity of each family’s parents, as the ethnicity of the children themselves is not recorded in the FRS data). Families with white parents and families with Asian parents lose out slightly more on average from the reforms than any other ethnic group. Note that the sample sizes in the FRS for the non-white ethnic groups are relatively small and so these results should be treated as indicative only. Figure 2.8. Families with children by parental ethnicity: Impacts of tax-benefit reforms in 2010-15 as a percentage of net income Office of the Children’s Commissioner: Child Rights Impact Assessment of Budget Decisions June 2013 33
Page 1 and 2: Office of the Children’s Commissi
Page 3 and 4: Contents Executive Summary 5 1 Intr
Page 5 and 6: Executive Summary Introduction This
Page 7 and 8: When spending was examined against
Page 9 and 10: 1. Introduction 1.1 The Office of t
Page 11 and 12: 1.3 The ‘maximum extent of their
Page 13 and 14: 1.5 Children’s budgets and impact
Page 15 and 16: 1.7 Methodology This assessment is
Page 17 and 18: 2.3 Poverty and rights: what childr
Page 19 and 20: 2.4.2 Impact of tax, tax credit and
Page 21 and 22: 2.4.4 The impact of tax, tax credit
Page 23 and 24: Taken together, these requirements
Page 25 and 26: income, lone parents lose the most,
Page 27 and 28: Figure 2.2 shows the same results a
Page 29 and 30: These outweigh the impact of the re
Page 31: 2.5.4 The impact of tax, tax credit
Page 35 and 36: 2.6 The impact of tax and benefit c
Page 37 and 38: 2.7 Conclusion: The impact of tax,
Page 39 and 40: 3. The impact of public spending de
Page 41 and 42: 3.3 Public spending and services: w
Page 43 and 44: 3.4 Methodology The results in this
Page 45 and 46: 3.6 The distributional impact of pu
Page 47 and 48: Table 3.2 shows (for working age fa
Page 49 and 50: Figure 3.4. Impacts of spending cut
Page 51 and 52: 3.6.3 Impact of cuts by number of c
Page 53 and 54: 3.6.4 Impact of cuts by ethnicity o
Page 55 and 56: A survey by the Association of Dire
Page 57 and 58: despite the fact that families with
Page 59 and 60: 4. Changes to childcare and early y
Page 61 and 62: Figure 4.1. Numbers of Families gai
Page 63 and 64: Figure 5.2 shows that the impact of
Page 65: For more information Frances Winter

force_download.php?fp=/client_assets/cp/publication/676/A_Child_Rights_Impact_Assessment_of_Budget_Decisions

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?