Rachel Reeves under pressure to ‘urgently rule out' tax hikes
The Tories argue that leaving investors"in limbo" could harm the economy.
The party claims that scrapping the £500 dividend allowance would pull an estimated 5.22 million more individuals into paying investment levies.
This pressure on ministers comes after a document, reportedly sent by the Deputy Prime Minister to Ms Reeves, was leaked to the press.
In the memo, Ms Rayner proposed removing the dividend allowance to generate approximately £325 million annually, as well as axing inheritance tax relief for AIM shares and increasing dividend tax rates, according to The Telegraph.
Shadow chancellor Mel Stride commented: 'The Government need to urgently rule out these tax hikes on savers and investors before speculation causes further economic harm.
' Labour don't understand how business works and how to create growth. More taxes on investment, entrepreneurship and saving are the last thing our economy needs right now.'
The Government's U-turns over welfare reform and winter fuel payments have left the Chancellor with a multibillion-pound black hole to fill, fuelling speculation that she will seek to raise revenue through tax hikes.
The Tories claimed axing the dividend allowance would drag 'an estimated 5.22 million more people into paying dividend tax'.
This figure appears to be based on an assumption that at least 8.82 million people in the UK hold shares that pay dividends.
Some 3.6 million are already subject to dividend tax, according to data obtained by investment platform AJ Bell through a Freedom of Information request.
The Chancellor last year said she would not be 'coming back with more borrowing or more taxes' after her first budget but has since refused to rule out raising specific levies, saying it would be 'irresponsible' to do so.
A Labour Party spokesperson said: 'The Conservatives have some brass neck. They've still not apologised for the damage caused by the Liz Truss mini-Budget, nor the £22 billion black hole they left – which hammered firms and families across the country.
'Labour is doing more to support business than the Tories ever could.
'We've already delivered three historic trade deals and four interest rate cuts – to reduce costs and put money back in people's pockets.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Evening Standard
26 minutes ago
- Evening Standard
BP fuels FTSE 100 but soft US data tempers gains
The London-based brewer and distiller, which owns brands ranging from Guinness stout to Johnnie Walker whisky, on Tuesday reported a decline of more than a third in its bottom line in the financial year that ended in June, as a slight decline in net sales was compounded by impairment and restructuring costs, unfavourable currency movements, and narrowed operating margins.
Daily Mail
26 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Yorkshire Water boss paid 'extra' £1.3 million from firm's offshore parent company despite 'dire' environmental record and hikes to bills
A water company boss was handed more than £1.3 million in 'extra' pay from an offshore firm, despite its abysmal record on pollution and increasing household bills. Chief executive Nicola Shaw pocketed two payments of £660,000 in the last two years from Yorkshire Water's parent company Kelda Holdings, in addition to her salary with the beleaguered utilities firm. Yorkshire Water was allowed to raise average annual household bills by 41 per cent last year, and this summer introduced a hosepipe ban for its 5.5 million customers. It was ordered to pay £40 million in the spring to address its 'serious failures' over wastewater and sewage, and was also separately fined nearly £1 million last month for polluting a watercourse with chlorine, causing the death of hundreds of fish. Yorkshire Water is one of the six water companies currently banned from paying bonuses under Government action designed to prevent bosses who 'oversee poor environmental and customer outcomes' from receiving extra money. But figures showed Ms Shaw received just over £1.3 million between 2023 and 2025 from Kelda, in addition to her Yorkshire Water salary of around £689,000 per year - remuneration which was reduced by about one-third after she decided to forgo her bonus before the Government performance-related pay ban came in. The Kelda money is 'a fixed fee for investor-related work' performed by Ms Shaw for the parent company 'and complies fully with expectations and reporting requirements', Yorkshire Water said. Including the offshore company payments, she has been awarded more than £3 million in total pay over three years since she joined the firm in 2022, according to analysis first reported by the Guardian. Ofwat, the water regulator, is now investigating. Ms Shaw's earnings have infuriated environmental campaign groups. Amy Fairman, head of campaigns for River Action, said: 'Yorkshire Water has just been fined over £900,000 for polluting a watercourse with millions of litres of chlorinated water, killing hundreds of fish, yet its CEO is quietly handed an extra £1.3 million through an offshore firm. 'This is business as usual in a system that rewards environmental destruction and shields those responsible. 'Until executives are held criminally accountable, not just cushioned by shareholders, nothing will change. 'And unless we see a complete overhaul of the water industry, one that finally ends the failed privatisation experiment, this scandalous cycle will continue.' The Ilkley Clean River Group has now written to Kelda chairman Vanda Murray, asking her to justify Ms Shaw's pay given Yorkshire Water's dismal record under her watch. The campaigners wrote: 'To the customer, the additional payments to Ms Shaw look like a way of "working around" the fact that bonuses were causing public outrage and subsequently banned by government. 'There is in effect no change to eye-watering salaries at the top of Yorkshire Water.' A Yorkshire Water spokesman said Ms Shaw's work for Kelda Group included 'investor engagement, financial oversight, and management of the Kelda Group, which is recognised by a fee of £660,000 paid by shareholders'. He added: 'This is a conscious governance decision: we do not believe that work done on investor-related activities should be paid for by Yorkshire Water customers' bills. 'This fee, which has remained unchanged year on year, reflects the critical importance of the work during this period that was led by Nicola in securing long-term investment for Yorkshire Water. 'We remain focused on our long-term commitment to delivering better outcomes for customers, communities, and the environment across the region.' It was reported tonight that Ofwat's chief executive David Black is due to resign, ahead of the watchdog's planned abolition by ministers.
The Independent
26 minutes ago
- The Independent
Are online travel agents cleaning up their acts?
On Thursday I will fly on British Airways from London to Denver. The return trip cost £621. But I could have bought the same flights for around £30 cheaper going through an online travel agent (OTA). Odd though it may seem, the practice of selling some seats at deep discounts through a middleman has some merit from the airlines' point of view. The roots of the practice lie in the bad old days of heavily regulated fares. On many routes airlines could not be seen to sell tickets cheaper than the official fares. So they sold through companies called 'consolidators' who punted out cheap seats though retail agencies known as 'bucket shops'. Often the ticket would show an official fare that bore no relation to the amount paid – eg £1,200 for a trip that actually cost £500. That maintained the fiction that every airline was adhering to super-high fares. Thankfully, these days – in most circumstances – airlines can charge what they like. Yet they still often pay a modest commission to online agents who undercut them. Airlines use intermediaries to provide additional sales power. They want to be relevant in the intensely fare-sensitive part of the market, such as people who search on Skyscanner and other price-comparison sites. Take my flight from London to Denver this week. BA knows that there are plenty of us who will book direct, in order to minimise problems when things go wrong – and, in the case of buying on the benefit of a cooling-off spell of 24 hours in which to cancel for a full refund. To meet this demand, the airline can apply a modest premium. But for those who are simply interested in the lowest fare, BA seats are likely to be available more cheaply through an OTA. My rule is only to use an online travel agent if the saving is 10 per cent or more. In this case, it was under five per cent. Not enough to persuade me to agree to the online agent's terms and conditions. The OTA reserves the right to apply credit card surcharges, and has a 'confirmed quotation' stage – after which point, fares could be increased, with little choice but to pay the extra. What if the airline cancels the flight? The online agent doesn't even mention the word 'refund', even though this is the traveller's legal right in the event of a cancellation. As we discovered during the Covid pandemic, many OTAs took a cut of the airline's refund (and some just hung on to the customer's cash, blaming the carrier). In the EU, though, the rules are being redrawn in the traveller's favour. This week, the European Commission said that it had agreement from two giants, Expedia and that money will be handed back in full within two weeks of the cancellation. Similar undertakings have been made by other big OTAs, including Etraveli. You may not know this Swedish firm, but its brands include GoToGate and MyTrip. I used the latter to buy a ticket for a JetStar flight from Singapore to Melbourne earlier this year – which was cancelled at the gate. The cash took 17 days to come back. In contrast, still holds some of my money for a booking that fell victim to Covid five years ago. I shall revisit that transaction and see if the new agreement works to my advantage. It may be that UK travellers get a windfall from the EU's work – despite our bold decision to reap the many benefits of Brexit that we are now enjoying.
