Warnings of tax rises after Downing Street welfare U-turn
There are predictions of tax rises in the Autumn budget after Sir Keir Starmer U-turned on welfare reforms in the face of a backbench rebellion.
The Prime Minister said that the concessions strike 'the right balance', but think tanks have warned that the changes announced in the early hours of Friday morning have made Rachel Reeves's 'already difficult Budget balancing act that much harder'.
Downing Street declined to rule out the possibility of increases in the autumn, telling reporters on Friday that 'tax decisions are set out at fiscal events'.The concessions on offer include protecting personal independence payments (Pip) for all existing claimants, while all existing recipients of the health element of Universal Credit will have their incomes protected in real terms.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said on Friday that the changes make tax rises in the budget expected in the autumn more likely.
Associate director Tom Waters said: 'These changes more than halve the saving of the package of reforms as a whole, making the Chancellor's already difficult Budget balancing act that much harder.'
Ruth Curtice, chief executive at the Resolution Foundation, said that 'the concessions aren't cheap, costing as much as £3 billion and more than halving the medium-term savings from the overall set of reforms announced just three months ago'.
She added: 'This adds to the already mounting pressure to deliver fresh consolidation in the Budget this Autumn.'
Asked about how the climbdown would be funded, Downing Street said on Friday that 'There'll be no permanent increase in borrowing, as is standard.
'We'll set out how this will be funded at the budget, alongside a full economic and fiscal forecast in the autumn, in the usual way.'
Asked whether they could say there would be no tax rises, a Number 10 spokesman said: 'As ever, as is a long-standing principle, tax decisions are set out at fiscal events.'
Some 126 Labour backbenchers had signed an amendment that would have halted the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill in its tracks when it faces its first Commons hurdle on July 1.
The list of Labour MPs putting their name to the amendment had been growing throughout the week, as Downing Street said that they would be pressing on with next week's vote.
After the late-night U-turn, Sir Keir said that 'the most important thing is that we can make the reform we need'.
'We talked to colleagues, who've made powerful representations, as a result of which we've got a package which I think will work, we can get it right,' he added.
'For me, getting that package adjusted in that way is the right thing to do, it means it's the right balance, it's common sense that we can now get on with it.'
While leading rebels believe the concessions are likely to be enough to win over a majority, some remain opposed to the plans in their current form.
Dr Simon Opher, who represents Stroud, said in a statement that he is glad the Government 'are listening', but that the changes 'do not tackle the eligibility issues that are at the heart of many of the problems with Pip'.
'The Bill should be scrapped and we should start again and put the needs of disabled people at the centre of the process,' he said.
It is also understood that talks are underway over rebel attempts to lay another amendment to seek to delay the plans, as reported by The Guardian.
The fallout also threatens to cause lasting damage, with some backbenchers having called for a reset of relations between Number 10 and the parliamentary party.
Speaking to the PA news agency, a number of Labour backbenchers expressed deeper frustration with how Downing Street has handled its backbenchers since last year's election.
The Government's original package had restricted eligibility for Pip, the main disability payment in England, as well as cutting the health-related element of universal credit.
Existing recipients were to be given a 13-week phase-out period of financial support in an earlier move that was seen as a bid to head off opposition.
Now, the changes to Pip will be implemented in November 2026 and apply to new claimants only, while all existing recipients of the health element of universal credit will have their incomes protected in real terms.
The concessions on Pip alone protect some 370,000 people currently receiving the allowance who were set to lose out following reassessment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The taxes Reeves could raise to pay for Labour's about-turns
Rachel Reeves faces another black hole in the public finances. This time she can blame her own MPs: the revolt by more than 120 Labour backbenchers has forced the Prime Minister to back down on his proposal to slow the growth in the benefits bill. Sir Keir Starmer's reforms were supposed to save £5bn per year. But now that he has performed another about-turn, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) estimates the scheme will only save £2bn, thus blowing a fresh £3bn hole in the Chancellor's numbers. 'These changes more than halve the saving of the package of reforms as a whole, making the Chancellor's already difficult budget-balancing act that much harder,' says Tom Waters, at the think tank. It comes weeks after the policy reversal on winter fuel payments for pensioners, which will cost more than £1bn. To make matters worse, the economy is slowing – in part because of Labour's record-breaking tax raids – which will undermine the tax revenues on which Reeves's plans relied. Ruth Gregory, at Capital Economics, estimates the combination of higher benefits spending and lower growth will cost the Chancellor £22bn compared to the Office for Budget Responsibility's forecasts at the Spring Statement. If MPs will not allow the Government even the most modest restraint on spending, and if the Chancellor will not again rewrite her own 'iron-clad' borrowing rules, that means more tax rises are on the way in the autumn. Here are the options Reeves will be looking at. The Government's biggest revenue-raiser, income tax, raked in £310bn last year – almost precisely matching the £313bn spent on benefits. Adding a penny to the basic and higher rates of income tax would bring in just over £10bn extra per year, according to HMRC estimates. That means at least 2p would need to be added to come close to repairing Reeves's Budget. If it were not for Labour's manifesto pledge not to raise the tax, this would be an obvious place for the Chancellor to turn. But the manifesto is hardly a meaningful constraint. The vaunted document also promised not to raise National Insurance contributions (NICs), but the Chancellor did just that in her first Budget. The Government argued that the manifesto promise only applied to the NICs paid directly by workers, not the much larger share paid by their employers. Income tax does not lend itself quite so easily to such a ruse, but the Chancellor could extend the Conservatives' long freeze on thresholds. A classic stealth tax, this method means that as workers receive pay rises they are pulled more quickly into higher tax brackets – even if inflation means the spending power of their pay packets is not actually growing. The freeze on thresholds, which is currently set to last until 2028, is already expected to bag the Chancellor nearly £50bn per year by the end of the decade. Extending it by another two years would bring in an extra £10bn per year, the IFS estimates. Given the sums involved and the fact that stealth raids do not affect workers in an obvious way, this is seen as a likely option. The Chancellor is unlikely to whack businesses with another raid. She has promised hostile bosses that she will not pull the same stunt on National Insurance contributions again. Andrew Bailey, the Governor of the Bank of England, has also warned that last year's tax raid is now weighing on the economy, meaning increasing the rate again could be counterproductive. But that does not mean the tax, which is set to bring in £200bn this year, has to go untouched. One option is to raise the rate paid by workers. This would breach even the revised version of the manifesto pledge, but could be framed as reversing reckless Tory tax cuts – under Jeremy Hunt, Reeves's predecessor in No 11, the rate was chopped from 12pc to 10pc and then down to 8pc. Each of those two percentage point moves cost more than £10bn, so reversing the cuts could help Reeves considerably. Increasing the rate of capital gains tax (CGT) is popular in Left-wing circles. Unfortunately, jacking up the tax paid on profits made from the sale of assets comes with a range of downsides, which can result in a higher tax rate in fact costing the Treasury revenue. A large share of CGT is paid by a very small number of people. If the higher rate means they simply decide not to sell their assets, then the tax take will plunge in short order. HMRC estimates that a one percentage point increase in the top rate ends up costing the Treasury £30m per year. A 5p increase costs £870m per year. A 10p jump loses a staggering £3.6bn per year for the public purse. As a result, increasing the rate of CGT seems unlikely. Another option ruled out in the manifesto, this levy on a large share of the things people buy is on track to bring in £200bn per year by the end of the decade. Currently charged at a rate of 20pc, increasing VAT might not be the most popular measure when households are already reeling from a cost of living crisis. None the less, it could be a tempting option when a 1p increase brings in £9.6bn per year. Alternatively, the Chancellor could slap the tax on items that are currently exempt – as she did with private school fees this year – or those that attract the reduced rate of 5pc, such as energy bills. Reeves has maintained the accounting wheeze employed by successive Conservative chancellors: freeze fuel duty year after year but pencilling in extra revenues from future increases. About half of her headroom comes from the official assumption that the tax on petrol and diesel will rise in future – yet few expect she will actually jack up the cost of driving. The fuel duty escalator has been frozen for a decade and a half, making it politically difficult to unfreeze. Most economists believe it will be kept frozen. It would be a shock to voters, but Reeves may find it an attractive revenue-raiser: reintroducing inflation-linked increases in fuel duty would raise an estimated £5bn a year. It is not just the big taxes that are on the table. Angela Rayner, the Deputy Prime Minister, wrote to Reeves with a raft of proposed tax increases ahead of the Spring Statement. Suggestions included: a higher bank surcharge, raising up to £700m from lenders; scrapping inheritance tax relief on Aim-listed shares, for anywhere between £100m and £1bn; removing the dividend allowance to bag £325m, as well as raising the tax rate on dividends; and further freezing the threshold at which high earners pay the additional rate of income tax. Raising the tax on enveloped properties, which are largely owned by companies, could raise another £200m, while closing a commercial property stamp duty loophole could net £1bn. Reinstating a lifetime allowance on pensions contributions might gain close to £800m per year. Rayner also suggested clawing back more child benefit from higher-earning households, for £600m, and tightening migrants' access to benefits. Together those measures could increase the Treasury's haul by £4.6bn or more. That would be useful, but is barely enough to cover the cost of Starmer's latest about-turns, let alone cover the other costs. The scale of spending commitments mounting up means Reeves is facing unpalatable choices when it comes to the Budget. 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. 擷取數據時發生錯誤 登入存取你的投資組合 擷取數據時發生錯誤 擷取數據時發生錯誤 擷取數據時發生錯誤 擷取數據時發生錯誤
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Budget panels approve $58.8B spending bill in late night votes
The Legislature is scheduled to give formal approval to the $58.8 billion spending bill on Monday. (Dana DiFilippo | New Jersey Monitor) Budget panels in both chambers of the Legislature in late-night votes Friday approved an annual spending bill that Senate Democrats have said will cost $58.8 billion. Legislators' proposal spends more than the plan Gov. Phil Murphy unveiled in late February, leaves the state with a surplus too small to meet a statutory requirement for a new tax relief program, and expands New Jersey's deficit to $1.5 billion (Murphy proposed $1.2 billion). If the budget stands at $58.8 billion, it would amount to the highest level in state history. The full Legislature is expected to give the plan a final vote on Monday. The next fiscal year begins Tuesday. Sen. Teresa Ruiz (D-Essex) on Friday read aloud a statement from an absent Sen. Paul Sarlo (D-Bergen), the Senate's budget chair. 'This is a budget that will help move New Jersey forward in the face of difficult fiscal conditions and severe economic uncertainty. We are making the best use of resources to address the priority needs of the state's residents in a fiscally responsible way,' the statement read. On net, lawmakers' changes to Murphy's proposed budget add $728 million in spending beyond what the governor sought, and while the total effect of their revenue raisers was not immediately clear, the state appears poised to take in less money from recurring revenue than under the governor's proposal. Republican officials, in what has become a yearly rejoinder, criticized the late-night budget votes, which were held before bill text was available to the public. Members of the press received copies of the spending bill at 8:37 p.m. Friday, but the bills were not posted online Friday. 'It's the complete opposite of what good government looks like,' said Sen. Tony Bucco (R-Morris). 'Their rushed, opaque budget charade is exactly why New Jersey is in the fiscal mess we've found ourselves in. There's no accountability, no planning, and absolutely no transparency, just last-minute deals and political favors pushed through in the dead of night when no one is looking.' Friday's vote by the Senate's budget committee capped an unusual process that began when the panel met on Thursday but ended its meeting without a vote on the budget. Instead of adjourning, the committee took a 24-hour-long recess that allowed members who would not be present Friday, like Sarlo, to record their votes early on a budget bill that did not yet exist. Witnesses and lawmakers praised the budget's full $7.2 billion pension payment, and the more than $12 billion it sets aside for formulaic school aid. However, some expressed concern that the state would still spend more than it brings in. 'I appreciate the responsible side of this budget where it's full pension payment, it's a full school aid payment, a healthier surplus than we're used to, but there's no signs of the structural reforms we truly need to give our next governor a healthier budget,' said Chris Emigholz, chief government affairs officer for the New Jersey Business and Industry Association. Assemblywoman Eliana Pintor Marin (D-Essex), her chamber's budget chair, said the state's next governor, who will take office in January, would need to determine whether some programs should be jettisoned. Murphy is barred from seeking a third term in November. 'Whoever comes in, I think that there's going to be some decisions that are going to have to be made. I think whether it's a Republican or a Democrat, they're going to have to take a look at especially some of the senior proposals just to see what we can do,' she said. Much of the new spending comes from legislative add-ons — variably called district spending, Christmas tree items, or simply 'pork.' Those items are numerous and varied, and their costs total in the hundreds of millions. They include millions in capital funding to individual school districts, like the $21 million Newark schools will receive, or for local infrastructure projects, like $8 million set aside for roadway improvements in Camden. Other changes would undo cuts to college financial assistance for students and reverse a $20 million cut Murphy proposed to community colleges' operating aid. Those cuts had rankled lawmakers and spurred alarm from university leaders. The budget would pull an additional $70 million from the state's clean energy fund to pay for salaries at NJ Transit, plus an additional $50 million to underwrite more general state spending. NJ Transit was already set to receive a separate $70.1 million from the fund as part of an annual diversion. The bill assumes the state will find $100 million in savings on state employees' health care benefits in the first six months of 2026, though it provides no suggestion for how officials realize such savings. Instead, it asks state and public employee representatives to each submit their own plans. The boosted spending would take the state's surplus to $6.7 billion, according to budget documents that had not undergone technical review by the Office of Legislative Services. Lawmakers augmented reserves by increasing a diversion from a debt defeasance fund — which is meant to reduce debt payments by immediately paying debt down or avoiding it altogether — to $555 million, from $250 million. The proposed level of surplus should trigger a statutory provision to pause payments from Stay NJ, a nascent property tax relief program that promises to cut seniors' property tax bills in half. The provision is intended to halt the program if the state doesn't have enough money to pay for it, but lawmakers have previously overwritten it. The budget includes a range of new or increased taxes, including a hike to rates paid on cigarettes, electronic cigarette fluid, high-dollar property sales, and casinos' online wagering wins. Lawmakers followed Murphy's lead on nicotine taxes, exactly matching proposals he made in his budget message, but approved lower tax rates for casinos' online wagering wins than the governor had sought. Those rates rise to 19.75% in lawmakers' budget plan, rather than the 25% Murphy pitched. Legislators made broader changes to a surcharge on realty transfers of more than $1 million. Rather than doubling that tax rate to 2% and imposing a 3% rate on property sales worth more than $2 million, legislators voted to raise rates to 2% for sales worth between $2 million and $2.5 million and increase them by an additional half percentage point for every $500,000 in additional value, to a cap of 3.5% at $3.5 million. Their proposal also calls for property sellers, rather than buyers, to pay the fee, a change that would decrease upfront costs for those buying buildings worth at least $1 million and reduce the profits from such property sales. Legislators eschewed some taxes sought by Murphy. They skipped a proposed 10% hike to the state's alcoholic beverage tax that was forecast to boost collections by $18.5 million. They also declined to enact a per-truck warehousing fee estimated to generate $20 million in revenue. A degree of uncertainty remains around the budget. GOP lawmakers in Washington, D.C., are exploring broad changes to federal programs that could pull billions in federal Medicaid funding, among other things, from New Jersey. 'In many ways, this budget may be a hypothetical document,' said Peter Chen, senior policy analyst at progressive think tank New Jersey Policy Perspective. 'When those cuts start coming, we'll have to come up with the revenue somewhere. Otherwise, we will face devastating cuts to many of the programs that we all hold dear.'
Bloomberg
3 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Keir Starmer's Domestic Leadership Skills Are Found Wanting
Some of Prime Minister Keir Starmer's closest advisers have been asking this week 'Who runs this government?' The precedents are not good when this question rears its head — when Conservative PM Edward Heath asked it before a 1974 snap general election, the voters answered 'not you, obviously,' and turfed him out. Until he caved in on Thursday, Starmer faced a massive rebellion over proposals to cut disability benefits by £5 billion ($7 billion). Some 126 MPs, half of Labour's representation in Parliament outside the ranks of ministers, had backed an amendment that would have wrecked the government's bill. Worse for the PM, the rebels included past and present House of Commons committee chairs with deep knowledge of the subject, rather than just left-wingers who oppose any efforts to curb the bloated benefits system.
