Poorest families hardest hit by 'regressive' Budget

A study by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, commissioned by the End Child Poverty Campaign, concluded that measures announced in the Budget were "regressive" as they hit the poorest hardest.

The research also found that families with children are losing out more than pensioners. In addition, the study showed that the poorest families with children lose more than any other group.

Fiona Weir, spokeswoman for End Child Poverty, said that while the coalition government had pledged to end child poverty by 2020, its cuts were hitting poorest families the hardest.

"It’s not fair that children should have to pay for the cuts and shocking that the poorest families are bearing the brunt of them," the spokeswoman added. "The spending review will need to show clearly how the government will deliver on the commitment to ending child poverty, ensuring that cuts fall on those most able to pay."

In response to the report shadow work and pensions secretary Yvette Cooper attacked the government for cutting benefits that could impact upon poorer families. She said: "The Chancellor claimed his Budget didn't increase child poverty – but only because he deliberately didn't count cuts in housing benefit, disability benefits and child tax credit that hit families hard.

"The idea that the poorest families with children should end up being hit hardest is appalling and gives the lie to George Osborne’s claim it was a progressive budget."

But a spokesman for the Treasury hit back at the report saying the government believes the IFS has been "selective".

"The Government does not accept the IFS analysis," he said. "It is selective, ignoring the pro-growth and employment effects of Budget measures such as helping households move from benefits into work, and reductions in corporation tax. It is essential that policy is informed by transparent analysis: That’s why we stand full-square behind our Budget analysis which is based on what can accurately and completely be measured."