On Wednesday, the Chancellor outlined the Government’s economic priorities in his first – and last – Autumn Statement. With pressure to steady the ship following the Brexit vote and the Prime Minister’s commitment to help ‘just about managing’ families (so-called JAMs) ringing in his ears, it was never going to be an easy task.

For a number of years, CARE has examined the way the income tax system in the UK works or, in many cases, doesn’t work for families in the UK. In particular, for families with children. Our research has shown consistently that the burden of tax which these families face is disproportionate. This is in large part due to the peculiar fact that we do not tax people based on the number of people in a household who are supported by a wage; rather, we tax people on an individual basis. To put it another way, we tax people based on the lump sum of money earned instead of on the number of people that lump sum must provide for.

It is for this reason that, whilst some extra money in most of our pockets from the Chancellor’s commitment to continue increasing the tax-free personal allowance is of course welcome, it is hard not to be disappointed by the Chancellor’s lack of support for families – particularly those who are less well off. Indeed, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that, although some families will be taken out of tax, most of the benefit from increasing the personal allowance will go to those who are already better off. This is firmly at odds with the Prime Minister’s stated intention to help so-called JAMs.

In addition, increasing the personal allowance is costly – to the tune of £6 billion pounds to raise it from where it is today (£11,000) to £12,500. That is £6 billion annually, most of which will not be seen by those who are less well off.

If the Government really wants to help JAMs, there are other ways.

The existing transferable allowance for married couples primarily benefits families who are poorer – and it does so more effectively than the personal allowance. Rather than disproportionately benefiting those who are better off, the transferable allowance does the opposite by disproportionately benefiting those who are poorer.

At present the Government is investing £210 million in the transferable allowance and £11 billion annually in the personal allowance – figures which seem back to front if the intention is to help those who are poorer and need the help more than those who are better off and do not.

The Government’s commitment to JAMs will be sorely tested in the course of this parliament, and if it is serious about helping them, the Government will need to do more to show it.

------

To read more, click here to have a look at an excellent article published the day before the Autumn Statement and written by the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who makes the case for raising the marriage allowance rather than the personal allowance.