Why cutting £20/wk from benefits isnt okay because it's "just ending a temporary increase"... a thread on the important history lesson in today's new @ONS incomes and inequality stats
I've had quite a few journalists ask in recent weeks why simply reversing the £20/week rise the Chancellor impressively swiftly put in place last April is such a big deal - surely it just takes us back to "normal" benefit levels that people were happy with pre-pandemic...
Why is this a deeply flawed approach? Because history goes back more than a year (who knew) - or to put it another way, there was nothing "normal" about what was happening to poorer families incomes immediately pre-pandemic. Today's stats make that crystal clear...
Outside recessions, incomes are meant to grow... but the typical income of the poorest fifth has been consistently falling since 2016. New ONS data shows it falling by 3.8% PER YEAR between 2016/17 & 2019/20 (this is probably an overestimate but either way huge falls took place) 
What's caused these huge year on year falls? Cuts to benefits - the four year benefit freeze alone took 6% off the value of most working age benefits during these years. The result: the poorest households entered the pandemic with no real income growth since 2004-05
If we take pensioners out for a second, the picture for working-age families is much worse: over the past 15 years we've seen income falls of 8% and 10% for poorer working-age households with and without children respectively
This is why benefit levels going pre-crisis were totally unsustainable. It's why the Chancellor increased them as it became clear many more of us would be relying on benefits. And it's why scrapping the £20/wk takes us back not to an okay "normality" but to widespread destitution
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
