Suchergebnisse

Tax and benefit changes under Labour to date will have a net cost to the exchequer of around £1.1 billion in 2005–06. This is the difference between a large set of changes raising around £57.2 billion and a slightly larger set of changes costing £58.3 billion. Tax and benefit reforms implemented in Labour's first term cost a net £4.8 billion, while those since 2001 have raised a net £3.7 billion. The average impact of the £1.1 billion tax and benefit giveaway since 1997 is to raise household disposable incomes by £0.84 a week or 0.2%. The biggest proportionate gains are in the second-poorest tenth of the population, whose disposable incomes are increased by 10.8%, while the richest tenth fare worst, with a cut in income of 5.1%. Tax and benefit reforms since 1997 have clearly been progressive, benefiting the less-well-off relative to the better-off. Reforms in the second term – while less generous on average – were more progressive than those in the first, with the poorest faring better. Increases in council tax above inflation since 1997 will raise a net £5.8 billion for local government in 2005–06, net of council tax benefit. This outweighs the £0.84 a week net giveaway per household by central government and leaves households overall £3.62 a week worse off on average. The increase in council tax is regressive, except for the poorest fifth of the population (thanks to council tax benefit). But the impact of council tax on the relative distribution of income is modest, leaving the overall progressive pattern of tax and benefit changes since 1997 intact.

On 17 December 2002, the government published a Department for Work and Pensions Green Paper about working and saving for retirementұ and a set of Inland Revenue proposals for reforms to the tax treatment of private pensions.2 Of the options explored in the two papers, it is claimed that Ѵhese proposals for better information, simpler pensions, simplified tax treatment, better protection and more flexible retirement are designed to enable people to make their own choices for retirement' (DWP Green Paper, Summary, 66, 10). The perceived need for yet more reforms to the UK pension system seems to stem from the governmentҳ belief that Ѱerhaps 3 million people are seriously under-saving (or planning to retire too soon)' and that ѡ further group of between 5 and 10 million people may want to consider saving more or working longer' (DWP Green Paper, 3, 16, 36). In this Briefing Note, we discuss whether or not the proposed reforms are likely to help individuals to make choices about how to provide for their retirement that are appropriate to their circumstances. We focus particularly on whether or not the proposals might prompt those individuals who are not thought to be providing sufficiently for their retirement to save more each year or to retire at an older age than might otherwise have been the case. This would help alleviate concerns about underprovision. The structure of our discussion is as follows. Section 2 describes the main proposed reforms. Section 3 discusses whether they are likely help individuals to make saving decisions that are appropriate to their circumstances. Section 4 looks at how the reforms might affect retirement ages. Section 5 concludes.

Election Briefing Note 5 shows how households have been affected by Labour's tax and benefit reforms. This Election Briefing Note discusses further tax-benefit reform that Labour proposes to introduce if re-elected. The first section discusses three "credits" the government is proposing to introduce - the integrated child credit, the pension credit and the employment tax credit. We analyse their likely effect on household incomes and how much each would cost to introduce. The new credits represent developments of tax-benefit reforms implemented in the last Parliament, but Labour's manifesto also contains proposals for "asset-based" welfare, which would represent more of a new departure. In particular, the party plans to introduce two new policies - the Child Trust Fund and the Saving Gateway. Both are targeted towards low-income households and provide financial assistance in the form of assets. This method of asset-based welfare delivery contrasts with (and is intended to complement) the traditional approach of providing social security benefits as income supplements. Section 2 considers some of the arguments for and against the proposed new approach. Finally, we consider Labour's approach to income tax.

The 2001 Labour Party manifesto committed the government to introducing a 'Child Trust Fund' and a 'Saving Gateway' in the current parliament. This Commentary assesses these two policy proposals. It looks for possible rationales behind the government's plans for some form of asset-based welfare. It provides a discussion of many of the issues important to the design of the Child Trust Fund and the Saving Gateway. It also presents new evidence on the characteristics, incomes and savings of lower-income groups who might be eligible for the Saving Gateway.

The Saving Gateway is a government initiative aimed at encouraging savings behaviour among people who do not usually save. Each pound placed into a Saving Gateway account is matched by the government at a certain rate and up to a monthly contribution limit. Matching provides a transparent and understandable incentive for eligible individuals to place funds in an account. An initial pilot of the Saving Gateway - SG1 - has already been conducted and evaluated. In the December 2004 Pre-Budget Report, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a new, larger scale, pilot of the Saving Gateway - SG2. Almost 21,500 individuals have opened SG2 accounts across six areas of England. The design of these accounts - in terms of the match rate and monthly contribution limit - varies across these areas. Alongside the financial incentive to place funds in a SG2 account, the pilots also offer financial education.

* Tax and benefit changes implemented by Labour since 1997 will have a net cost to the exchequer of around £2.2 billion in 2005-06. The average (mean) impact of this small net giveaway is to raise household disposable incomes by £1.69 a week or 0.4%. The biggest proportionate gains are in the 2nd poorest tenth of the population, whose disposable incomes are increased by 11.4%, while the richest tenth fare worst, with a cut in income of 3.7%. * Tax and benefit reforms since 1997 have clearly been progressive, benefiting the less well-off relative to the better-off. Reforms in the second term - while less generous on average - were more progressive than those in the first, with the poorest faring better. * Increases in council tax above inflation since 1997 will raise £5.8 billion in 2005-06, net of council tax benefit. This outweighs the giveaway by central government, and leaves households overall £2.85 a week worse off on average, equivalent to 0.6% of their disposable incomes. The increase in council tax is regressive, except for the poorest fifth of the population, who are partially protected from the rises by council tax benefit.

This Election Briefing Note aims to describe the key differences between the three main UK political parties on policies that might affect the ways in which individuals save and provide for the future, including the ways in which resources might be provided for retirement. Our main focus will be on policies that might affect future pensioners; IFS Election Briefing Note no. 11 explains how the different tax and benefit reform packages proposed by the different parties will affect people in the population in the short term, including current pensioners. We will also focus on areas in which the different parties have different policies.

OBJECTIVES—To determine compliance with a voluntary code of practice (VCP) for restricting smoking in restaurants and to canvass the attitudes of restaurateurs towards tougher smoking restrictions. DESIGN—Cross-sectional survey conducted in 1996 using a telephone questionnaire. SETTING—Metropolitan restaurants and cafés in Adelaide, South Australia. PARTICIPANTS—276 (86.8%) of a sample of randomly selected owners and managers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES—Restaurant non-smoking policies, reported and anticipated change in business, and restaurateurs' attitudes towards smoking restrictions. RESULTS—26.8% of restaurants had a total smoking ban; 40.6% restricted smoking some other way; and 32.6% permitted unrestricted smoking. Only 15.1% of restaurants with a ban or restrictions had used the VCP to guide the development of their policy, and only half of these were complying with it. Although 78.4% of those with bans and 84.4% of those with restrictions reported that their non-smoking policy had been associated with either no change or a gain in business, only 33.3% of those allowing unrestricted smoking expected that this would be the case, if they were to limit smoking. A total of 50.4% of restaurateurs, including 45.3% of those with no restrictions, agreed that the government should ban smoking in all restaurants. CONCLUSIONS—The VCP made an insignificant contribution to adoption of non-smoking policies, and compliance with the code was poor. Despite concerns about loss of business, there was considerable support for legislation which would ban smoking in all dining establishments. Keywords: smoking restrictions; restaurants; environmental tobacco smoke; Australia

The Saving Gateway is a government initiative aimed at encouraging savings behaviour among people who do not usually save. Each pound placed into a Saving Gateway account is matched by the government at a certain rate and up to a monthly contribution limit. Matching provides a transparent and understandable incentive for eligible individuals to place funds in an account.

Background: Unhealthy foods are promoted heavily, through food company sponsorship of elite sport, resulting in extensive exposure among young adults who are avid sport spectators. This study explores the effects of sponsorship of an elite sporting event by: (A) non-food brands (control), (B) unhealthy food brands, (C) healthier food brands, or (D) an obesity prevention public health campaign on young adults' brand awareness, attitudes, image perceptions, event-sponsor fit perceptions, and preference for food sponsors' products. Methods: A between-subjects web-based experiment was conducted, consisting of four sponsorship conditions (A through D) featuring three product categories within each condition. Australian adults (N = 1132) aged 18-24 years were recruited via a national online panel. Participants viewed promotional videos and news stories about an upcoming international, multi-sport event (with sponsor content edited to reflect each condition), completed a distractor task, and then answered questions assessing the response variables. Regression analyses were conducted to test for differences by sponsorship condition on the respective outcome measures. Results: Compared to the control condition, unhealthy food sponsorship promoted higher awareness of, and more favourable attitudes towards, unhealthy food sponsor brands. Unhealthy food sponsorship also led to greater perceived event-sponsor fit and transfer of perceptions of the sporting event to the unhealthy food sponsor brands, relative to the control group. Exposure to sponsorship for healthier foods produced similar sponsorship effects for healthier food sponsor brands, as well as prompting a significant increase in the proportion of young adults showing a preference for these products. Obesity prevention campaign sponsorship promoted higher campaign awareness and perceived event-sponsor fit, but did not impact food attitudes or preference for unhealthy versus healthier foods. Conclusion: Findings suggest that restricting elite sport sponsorship to healthier food brands that meet set nutritional criteria could help promote healthier eating among young adults. Sporting organisations should be encouraged to seek sponsorship from companies who produce healthier food brands and government-funded social marketing campaigns. Clinical trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) registration number ACTRN12618000368235. Retrospectively registered 12 March 2018.

Background: Unhealthy foods are promoted heavily, through food company sponsorship of elite sport, resulting in extensive exposure among young adults who are avid sport spectators. This study explores the effects of sponsorship of an elite sporting event by: (A) non-food brands (control), (B) unhealthy food brands, (C) healthier food brands, or (D) an obesity prevention public health campaign on young adults' brand awareness, attitudes, image perceptions, event-sponsor fit perceptions, and preference for food sponsors' products. Methods: A between-subjects web-based experiment was conducted, consisting of four sponsorship conditions (A through D) featuring three product categories within each condition. Australian adults (N = 1132) aged 18-24 years were recruited via a national online panel. Participants viewed promotional videos and news stories about an upcoming international, multi-sport event (with sponsor content edited to reflect each condition), completed a distractor task, and then answered questions assessing the response variables. Regression analyses were conducted to test for differences by sponsorship condition on the respective outcome measures. Results: Compared to the control condition, unhealthy food sponsorship promoted higher awareness of, and more favourable attitudes towards, unhealthy food sponsor brands. Unhealthy food sponsorship also led to greater perceived event-sponsor fit and transfer of perceptions of the sporting event to the unhealthy food sponsor brands, relative to the control group. Exposure to sponsorship for healthier foods produced similar sponsorship effects for healthier food sponsor brands, as well as prompting a significant increase in the proportion of young adults showing a preference for these products. Obesity prevention campaign sponsorship promoted higher campaign awareness and perceived event-sponsor fit, but did not impact food attitudes or preference for unhealthy versus healthier foods. Conclusion: Findings suggest that restricting elite sport sponsorship to healthier food brands that meet set nutritional criteria could help promote healthier eating among young adults. Sporting organisations should be encouraged to seek sponsorship from companies who produce healthier food brands and government-funded social marketing campaigns. Clinical trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) registration number ACTRN12618000368235. Retrospectively registered 12 March 2018.

© 2017 The Author(s). Background: Public health mass media campaigns may contribute to reducing the health and social burden attributed to alcohol consumption, but little is known about which advertising characteristics have been used, or have been effective, in alcohol harm reduction campaigns to date. As a first step towards encouraging further research to identify the impact of various advertising characteristics, this study aimed to systematically identify and examine the content of alcohol harm reduction advertisements (ads). Method: Ads were identified through an exhaustive internet search of Google, YouTube, Vimeo, and relevant government and health agency websites. Eligible ads were: English language, produced between 2006 and 2014, not primarily focused on drink-driving or alcohol in pregnancy, and not alcohol industry funded. Systematic content analysis of all ads was performed; each ad was double-coded. Results: In total, 110 individual ads from 72 different alcohol harm reduction campaigns were identified, with the main source countries being Australia (40%) and the United Kingdom (26%). The dominant topic for 52% of ads was short-term harms, while 10% addressed long-term harms, 18% addressed underage drinking, 17% communicated a how-to-change message, and 3% advocated for policy change. The behavioural objective of most ads was to motivate audiences to reduce their alcohol consumption (38%) or to behave responsibly and/or not get drunk when drinking (33%). Only 10% of all ads mentioned low-risk drinking guidelines. Eighty-seven percent of ads used a dramatisation execution style and 74% had a negative emotional tone. Ninety percent of ads contained messages or content that appeared to target adults, and 36% specifically targeted young adults. Conclusions: Some message attributes have been employed more frequently than others, suggesting several promising avenues for future audience or population-based research to compare the relative effectiveness of different characteristics of alcohol harm reduction ads. Given most alcohol-attributable harm is due to long-term disease, these findings suggest future campaigns may fill a potentially important gap if they were to focus on long-term harms. There is scope for such long-term harm campaigns to place greater emphasis on encouraging reduced personal consumption of alcohol, potentially through more frequent communication of low-risk drinking guidelines.