§ Mr. Churchill
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the increase in net take-home pay or benefit since 1979 of a married man with two children aged under 10 years who is (a) employed and in the lowest 10 per cent. of wage-earners and (b) unemployed and in receipt of supplementary and other benefits.
§ Mr. Moore
[pursuant to his reply, 29 January 1985, c. 160]: the position for a married man with two children aged 4 and 6, whose earnings were equal to the estimated lowest decile of earnings for full-time males (all occupations), paid at adult rates, is as follows:
In April 1979, he would have had take home pay of £49.10 per week after tax and NIC and, in addition, would have received child benefit of £8.00. He would also have been entitled to benefits-in-kind (free school meals) of £1.25 and, had he lived in Local Authority accommodation with typical rent and rates of £10.10 per week (including water rates), he would have been entitled to £2.09 in rent and rate rebates.
In April 1984, his weekly take home pay would have been £78.59 after tax and NIC, his child benefit £13.00 and, with typical Local Authority rent and rates of £22.75 per week, he would have been entitled to £10.22 in rebates. He may also have been entitled to benefits-in-kind (free school meals and welfare milk) of £2.60 per week.
A man in similar circumstances but unemployed and receiving supplementary benefit, would have received, in April 1979, in addition to child benefit of £8.00, benefits in cash or kind totalling £39.25 per week. This would have included full allowance for rent and rates.
In April 1984, an unemployed man getting supplementary benefit would hve received child benefit of £13.00 and other benefits in cash or kind totalling £77.67 per week. This would have included full rent and rate rebates.63W
§ Mr. Meacher
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the value to (a) a married man on national average earnings with two children aged 5 and 11 years, (b) a married man with the same family on two-thirds national average earnings and (c) a married man with the same family on five times national average earnings, from the expenditure of £2 million to either (i) increase child benefit or (ii) raise tax thresholds.
§ Mr. Moore
[pursuant to his reply, 7 February 1985, c. 675–76]: The increases in tax thresholds or child benefit which could be obtained at a cost of £2 million are very small. I assume that the hon. Member intended to specify a cost of £2 billion. The information in the table (for a married man with two children) therefore assumes an increase in expenditure or reduction in revenue of £2 billion in a full year.
£ per week £ per week £ per week Multiple of average earning Increase in child benefit * Reduction in income tax ⅔ 6.20 1.85 1 6.20 1.85 5 6.20 3.69 * Assuming similar increases in the supplementary benefit ordinary scale rates for dependent children.