Many recipients of government support after the onset of the
COVID-19 crisis saw their income fall one or two months before
receiving support. In the period in between, household spending hit
a low and non-payment of bills hit a high. This particularly
affected the self-employed and those who started claiming universal
credit. Many in the latter group experienced falls in income of
more than two-thirds in the month before support was paid, and even
afterwards their average incomes had fallen...Request free trial
Many recipients of government support after the onset of the
COVID-19 crisis saw their income fall one or two months before
receiving support. In the period in between, household spending hit
a low and non-payment of bills hit a high. This particularly
affected the self-employed and those who started claiming universal
credit. Many in the latter group experienced falls in income of
more than two-thirds in the month before support was paid, and even
afterwards their average incomes had fallen by 40% relative to
before the crisis.
These are among the findings of new work, funded by the Standard
Life Foundation, using real-time bank account data from budgeting
app Money Dashboard.
The research finds that:
-
New universal credit (UC) claimants have
seen, on average, a fall in net income of about 40% during the
crisis (even including UC). For households with a furloughed
employee (whose employer did not top up their support to full
pay) that figure is 13%, and for those receiving support from
the Self-Employment Income Support Scheme (SEISS) it is just
4%. However, for each of these groups – and especially
for the SEISS – there are people who fell through the cracks
and received no support.
-
The SEISS on average roughly replaced lost
income for recipients. However, some 2 million
individuals with some self-employment income – 38% of the total
– are ineligible for the SEISS, and will have received no
support for any self-employment income losses.
-
Between seeing a fall in income and receiving
support, recipients of UC and SEISS reduced their spending by
11% and 13% respectively, compared with otherwise-similar
households whose incomes were stable. Expenditures picked up
again once payments were received. This suggests delays
in payment really matter.
-
About half of new UC claimants who had been
repaying a mortgage stopped doing so, almost entirely before
the first UC payment arrived (and likely largely through
mortgage holidays). Before receiving the grant, SEISS
claimants’ mortgage payments had fallen by around a third, but
they mostly bounced back after grant receipt. The number of
mortgage payments fell by a quarter for furlough
recipients.
-
Non-payment of other bills rose among
recipients of income protection programmes. Council tax
payments fell by 10–20% for these households, with larger
declines for new UC claimants. Some SEISS recipients have also
fallen behind on rent.
-
New UC recipients have to wait five weeks
before getting their first payment. Despite the availability of
optional ‘advances’ to help cover this spell, households
experience periods of lower income before getting any support
at all. Many UC recipients had a month with lower income
before any support arrived; for about 30% of claimants, their
income in the month before their first payment had fallen by at
least two-thirds.
Isaac Delestre, a Research Economist at IFS
and an author of the report, said:
‘In the wake of the crisis, the government implemented two new
income protection schemes – for furloughed employees and
self-employed workers – and extended an existing one, universal
credit. Once the cash arrived, these programmes have provided huge
amounts of protection, though to differing extents. But the
long-standing controversy over the infamous five-week wait to
receive universal credit rightly identifies that the timing of
payment is also very important. While those who were furloughed
generally experienced no gap between income falls and income
support, many universal credit and SEISS recipients had one or two
months between the loss in income and the receipt of their support.
For many recipients, this seems to have been a tough period, with
significant falls in spending and a rise in the non-payment of
bills compared with other households.’
Mubin Haq, Chief Executive of Standard Life Foundation,
funders of the report, said:
‘At some point, we may need to reintroduce income protection
schemes. Although many were supported, lessons can be learned.
Millions were excluded or only partially protected, and payment
delays have caused financial misery. The pandemic has highlighted
the need for a comprehensive income protection package that has the
flexibility to adapt to labour market
conditions.’
ENDS
Notes to editors:
1. The briefing note "Income protection policy during COVID-19:
evidence from bank account data", by Isaac Delestre, Robert Joyce,
Imran Rasul and Tom Waters, will be published at 00:01 on Thursday
10 September 2020 on the IFS website: www.ifs.org.uk
2. Standard Life Foundation funds policy work, campaigning and
research to tackle financial problems and improve living standards
for people on low-to-middle incomes in the UK. It is an independent
charitable foundation registered in Scotland.
|