There's nothing progressive about a ‘bath tax'
We will be lectured that it is fairer, better for the environment, and, of course, 'more progressive'. Labour ministers are supporting plans by the water industry to extend metered supply.
In effect, very soon you could be forced to pay more for the amount of water you use. The trouble is, there is nothing 'progressive' about that. All it will do is create pockets of 'water poverty', reward the water companies for not repairing the pipes, further punish those who choose to have a bigger family, and, like smart meters, introduce an unworkable technology. We should scrap it before it even starts.
The days when you could run a bath, run the washing machine, or water the garden, without worrying about how much water you are using could soon be in the past. The more water you use, the higher the tariff you will have to pay. Very soon, we may have smart meters in the corner of the kitchen, as most of us already do for electricity, gently nagging us not to fill the kettle too much, or ticking us off for running the dishwasher before it is completely full. Every litre will be a guilt trip.
We will be told that the bath tax is more 'progressive', with those with the 'broadest shoulders', or simply people who like to stay clean, contributing more to the maintenance of the water network. The trouble is, that is ridiculous. There is nothing 'progressive' about charging for water – a utility we ought to have in abundant supply.
It won't just target people who have swimming pools or larger families, but those who live in the countryside where gardens are bigger, or grow their own vegetables, or just happen to like long relaxing baths. It is completely random. Complaints about 'water poverty' are inevitable, and demands for a complex system of rebates and benefits to compensate for the charges. The whole system will add yet another layer of complexity to a government system that is already breaking down.
Next, it rewards the water companies for failure. One of the major problems with the system is the amount of water that is lost through leaking pipes (up to 50 per cent on some estimates). Why bother repairing the network, and maintaining it properly, when you can simply whack up the charges for using more water, even if much of it has leaked before getting to you? A fixed rate per property rewards the companies for looking after the network. Metered changes risks rewarding them for negligence.
Finally, does anyone really believe that the meters will function properly? We already know that the roll-out of 'smart meters' for electricity has been a fiasco, with ruinous bills imposed when these devices go wrong, and then huge fines if you don't pay on time. Water is harder to meter than electricity. It will be even worse.
There is no shortage of water in the UK (in case anyone hadn't noticed, it rains quite often). The real problem is we have not built a new reservoir since 1992, while adding millions of people through mass immigration. Yet another tax won't fix that. It will just be one more huge charge that people who are already struggling with the cost of living will have to pay – and they won't even be able to afford a relaxing bath to calm down after opening the bill.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
2 hours ago
- Bloomberg
IDP Education Reviews Costs As International Student Numbers Dip
Student placement group IDP Education Ltd. is undertaking a detailed cost and productivity review, as the international student market continues to be hit by global policy uncertainty. Sydney-listed IDP said there was heightened unpredictability in the UK, with further restrictions on student immigration expected, while the international student environment in the US was increasingly negative. Restrictive policies remained in place in Australia and Canada.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Starmer's family business death tax won't help keep us safe
To govern is to choose. And this week we have heard ad nausem from Sir Keir Starmer about the tough choices he claims he is having to make to fund our islands' defence. Or rather presumably would have to make in order to get to a firm 3 per cent of GDP in this Parliament rather than the equivocal 3 per cent at the end of the next one he will not even commit to. But amidst the menu of choices, like the Chagos surrender costing our forces £100 million a year, there's one very easy choice that would pay back on many levels. To reverse his family business (and family farm) death tax. This prejudiced decision may turn out, according to new analysis, to cost more money than it raises, punishes aspiration and risks wiping out centuries-old businesses in a single parliamentary term. New independent research published by CBI economics confirmed in another example of Rachel Reeves's dodgy accountancy that this one tax will put 200,000 jobs at risk and lower the size of the wider economy by £15 billion. The Prime Minister must not go ahead with it. Family businesses represent years of work, skills and investments made, passed down carefully through generations. They currently receive relief on inheritance tax when passing it down to the next custodians. This is a feature introduced by a previous Labour government to ensure the success of a constituent part of the economy providing 14 million jobs in the UK. But this is an anti-business government, driven by what works in socialist screeds rather than the shop floor. So, it's no wonder Starmer and his ministers are intent on attacking them. The Cabinet don't have any real business experience between them – the Business Secretary [Jonathan Reynolds] embarrassingly lied on his CV even about being a qualified lawyer – and it shows. Labour came into the general election promising not to tax working people, but that is exactly what they are doing. This is a small business death tax, which will be paid for in the jobs of working people. While some businesses' assets may be valuable on paper, they don't equate to hard cash. There are plenty of family businesses for whom being forced to sell assets (like machinery) on the factory floor will mean emptying the factory floor. They're asset rich but cash poor – and they'll be forced to shut up shop. This is the latest in a long line of decisions aimed squarely at punishing wealth creators and risk takers by a government that at the most charitable interpretation doesn't know about business interests, nor foresee the outcome of their assaults on business. All the more reason to listen when independent forecasters say your numbers are wrong. More shockingly, what started as a pre-election prawn cocktail offensive aimed at charming business has become an all-out war on private enterprise. Because this is only the start. The Employment Bill, which will do the exact opposite of what it says on the tin, is costing businesses £5 billion and allows trade unions to reconquer private businesses. Many of those who won't be able to cope with its hundreds of pages more regulations will be the same small, family businesses already suffering under the burden of the death tax. As part of my role as shadow business secretary, I have been going around the country engaging with businesses from the biggest automotive firms to village shops. All seriously worried about what this government will do next. It is no wonder that there has been an exodus of wealth creators since Starmer has taken office. Last year, over 10,000 millionaires fled Labour's socialist attacks on businesses and wealth creators. The tax bills they took with them are the equivalent of losing 300,000 average taxpayers. These are ambitious, courageous people, many of them entrepreneurs who have choices – and they're not choosing Labour's Britain. These people create jobs, drive growth, and pay for our public services. We will all be worse off without them. But still, Reeves dogmatically ploughs on, not paying attention to the warning lights on the dashboard flashing red or the millionaires leaving every 45 minutes. It is a stark reminder of what socialists are capable of when they get their hands of the levers of power. The Conservatives understand family businesses and wealth creators because so many of us have worked in the private sector. While other parties fight over who can spend the fastest more taxpayers' money we cannot afford, we continue to advocate for government that spends only within its means and balances its books without fiddling the rules. That means making the genuinely tough choices that will prioritise defence over ballooning welfare costs. We know that those who start businesses are taking a risk. We need to create a society where people aren't afraid to fail and are rewarded for those risks when they pay off. At the very least, those who start family businesses should know that they are able to pass their business down to the next generation. Unless the Prime Minister sees sense soon, Britain's legion of quietly successful family business will be consigned to the dustbin of history and our future with them. Andrew Griffith is the Conservative shadow business and trade secretary Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Rachel Reeves threatens Roman Abramovich over frozen £2.35bn Chelsea sale funds
Rachel Reeves is preparing to haul Roman Abramovich to court to finally break the three-year deadlock around the frozen £2.35 billion Chelsea sale fund. In a dramatic hardening of the UK's position, the Chancellor is taking a personal lead in attempting to force the fund's release for Ukraine aid. The fund has remained in limbo as Abramovich remains at loggerheads with ministers over how it is spent on war victims. The Labour Government has been holding the same line as the previous Tory administration in insisting the huge sum is spent only on Ukraine. As talks continue to stall, Reeves and David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, have now resorted to threatening court action. 'We are deeply frustrated that it has not been possible to reach agreement on this with Mr Abramovich so far,' a statement from the pair read. Senior ministers have been debating for years how best to deal with Abramovich, who has maintained throughout that his initial agreement with the Government was to release the fund for 'all victims' of the war. The possibility of action via the courts was previously toyed with by the Conservative government, sources close to talks say. With Labour making no progress since coming to power, however, Reeves is understood to have played a key role in pursuing a new tougher on-the-record position. 'The Government is determined to see the proceeds from the sale of Chelsea Football Club reach humanitarian causes in Ukraine, following Russia's illegal full-scale invasion,' the new statement said, before later adding: 'While the door for negotiations will remain open, we are fully prepared to pursue this through the courts if required, to ensure people suffering in Ukraine can benefit from these proceeds as soon as possible.' No final decision has been made on taking Abramovich through the courts to seize the asset. Such action against the oligarch would inevitably be lengthy and messy. The former Chelsea owner first promised proceeds for 'all Ukraine war victims' after putting the west-London club up for sale on March 2, 2022, eight days before facing action over alleged links to Vladimir Putin, the Russia president. Abramovich is still under UK Government sanction. The proceeds have been frozen in a UK bank account since the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) issued a licence to permit Abramovich to sell the club. The fund will have generated a significant amount of interest while in the account, potentially taking the total value beyond £2.5 billion. The Foreign Office had repeatedly promised in recent months that the new Government would 'double down' on efforts to reach a solution. Humanitarian charities have grown increasingly desperate for a breakthrough, fearful that discussions will be thrown further into chaos if UK sanction arrangements against Russia were to change. Despite the sale of the club taking place entirely within UK jurisdiction, ministers signed a unilateral declaration in May with the European Commission, stating the money would be spent 'exclusively' within Ukraine. That move bemused the humanitarian sector as Mike Penrose, a former UK chief executive of Unicef, was brought in to create an independent foundation on the basis that it would be spent on 'Ukraine and its consequences'. Penrose has been taking a neutral position in discussions between the Government and Abramovich's lawyers. He has set up legal undertakings to make sure the money cannot fall back into the hands of the Russian. The Government will have board input and Jan Egeland, a senior Norwegian diplomat who once advised Kofi Annan at the United Nations, was brought in as interim chairman of the foundation. James Deneslow, head of the conflict team at Save the Children, is among leading figures in the sector to call on ministers to release the funds to support the full 'humanitarian consequences of the war in Ukraine'. The difference of opinion on the purposes of the foundation predates the Chelsea sale to a consortium led by American businessman Todd Boehly, which was completed on May 30, 2022. A representative of Abramovich has been contacted by Telegraph Sport for comment. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
