Britain doesn't need a wealth tax – we already have at least three
No 10 then refused to rule out introducing a levy, and the usual suspects lined up to say what a good idea it would be.
On the opposite side of the debate, centre-Right economists have pointed out the obvious: wealth taxes have failed in almost all the countries they've been introduced in.
It is also far from clear how wealth can reliably be valued at regular intervals when nobody has any faith that a crumbling HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) could administer it.
Stuart Adam, a senior economist at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said: 'Taxing the same wealth every year would penalise saving and investment.
'An annual wealth tax would need to apply broadly to all assets to ensure that it was not easy to avoid. Such a tax could raise significant revenue if it applied to the bulk of the UK's wealth – that would include the homes and pensions of the middle class.
'Trying to raise large amounts of revenue from only the very wealthy would make the UK a less attractive place for those people to live.'
Forgetting the practicalities, the more important point is that we already effectively have wealth taxes in this country.
Death duties
Unlike countries such as Australia and Sweden, Britain applies inheritance taxes on the estates of the deceased. If this isn't a wealth tax, I don't know what is – and it's getting more pernicious.
The tax-free allowance has been frozen at £325,000 per person since 2009, and despite an extra allowance for passing on main homes, HMRC is collecting ever greater amounts as asset prices have risen.
From April 2027, unspent pensions will also be counted as part of an estate for inheritance tax purposes, which will send receipts soaring even higher.
Don't rule out more changes to death duties. It is still paid by a minority of estates and, while the very wealthy can take steps to limit tax bills, it is difficult to avoid.
There is room to cut back several reliefs further, and Rachel Reeves could scrap the complicated family home allowance.
VAT on private school fees
It shouldn't be controversial to say that it is immoral to tax education. If someone chooses to spend their money, hard-earned or otherwise, on schooling then that should not be penalised.
In an ideal world, state schools would be all brilliant, well-resourced and able to cope with all types of children. Ultimately, there would be no need for private education.
To decide to fund your family's education from your own funds shouldn't be considered a 'luxury', which of course is what VAT was intended to tax. This is a wealth tax, pure and simple, driven by ideology and class warfare.
Council tax premium
It was Michael Gove who decided to grant councils the power to charge extra council tax on second homes.
Since April, when the powers came in, local authorities up and down the country have been sending bills to shocked property owners.
In some places, you could argue the dire shortage of homes for local people justifies squeezing out holidaymakers but, in many cases, this is just a way to extract more tax from those deemed 'wealthy'.
Many down from Londoners (DFLs) can afford to cough up, but other families are being forced to sell properties cared for for generations, often in remote places where there is no local demand for housing.
There have long been calls to reform council tax to make the system fairer across the country. Millions of homes pay higher council tax than Buckingham Palace.
A Chancellor with little left to lose (know of anyone that fits that description?) could announce a once-in-a-generation redrawing of council tax, which would almost certainly hit London and the South East the hardest.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
24 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Police investigating door-cam cop for openly admitting he thought force's Big Brother tactics were wrong
Police have been condemned for seeing a father at home to 'warn' him about attending a protest against illegal migrants – despite one officer apologetically admitting that the visit was 'b*******'. Two West Midlands Police officers visited the man in Coventry to hand him a leaflet about 'correct' behaviour expected at public demonstrations. But one is in trouble after door-cam footage recorded him calling the visit 'b*******' and adding: 'It's not something I agree with, but I've been asked to do it.' The force has confirmed it is investigating the matter, including speaking to the officer and reviewing the video. Last night Reform leader Nigel Farage said: 'It's two-tier policing. 'Anybody who wants to peacefully protest about the growing sense of anger around the country over sexual assaults and crimes being committed by young men is being told either not to go, or their online conversations are now being censored.' Tory grandee David Davis said: 'People in the Midlands will be saying, 'Why aren't you investigating my burglary?' It is foolishly heavy-handed.' Yesterday's peaceful anti-illegal migrant protest was attended by hundreds outside Warwickshire County Council town hall in Nuneaton. The father, 37, had planned to attend but was paid a visit by the two officers on Friday afternoon. The man posted the doorbell footage on social media and it went viral, with the footage viewed millions of times. The officer tells the father: 'Warwickshire [Police] have asked me to come round and just, er, basically it's a load of b*******, mate, but it's about this protest tomorrow in Warwickshire.' The officer says he has been sent to give him a leaflet. He adds, laughing: 'It sounds daft, so I apologise, and it's really woeful. It's not something I agree with but I've been asked to do it.' The father replies: 'Do me a favour. Take it [leaflet] back to them and say we will no longer be silent and to f*** themselves. From me, with love.' The father, who works for a major construction company, said he did not know why police visited him, adding that 'numerous' others were visited by officers in Coventry ahead of the protest. The officer was being praised as a hero on social media, despite being investigated by his force. One social media user said: 'This copper needs a raise.'
Times
an hour ago
- Times
How the shift to electric cars is being tripped up by health and safety
Some £25 million of taxpayer money is available to help those without driveways charge an electric vehicle from their home, but some local authorities are blocking funding requests on health and safety grounds over concerns that hidden charging cables are a trip hazard. Being able to charge a vehicle at home can be make or break for drivers wanting to go electric. Home charging can cost as little as 6p per kilowatt-hour (kWh) — almost nine times less than public chargers, which cost about 52p/kWh on average. Charging at home is easy if you have a driveway or garage. Those without would have to run a cable from their property to the street, which can obstruct the pavement — an offence under the Highways Act. A number of companies argue a better option is to dig shallow channels into the pavement to run the cable through, which is topped off with a flat lid that sits flush to the ground and typically costs about £1,000. Residents first need planning permission and a street works licence from their local council, and sometimes have to pay an ongoing annual maintenance or licence fee to the council or company. Advocates argue that gullies are safer than loose hanging cables, which can obstruct the pavement. About 35 per cent of households in the UK, and 56 per cent in London, do not have off-street parking according to the RAC Foundation, a think tank. These households must rely on expensive public chargers. Fully charging a Renault Zoe with a 52kWh battery would cost £3.12 at home at 6p/kWh, and £27.04 on a public charger at 52p/kWh, according to ZapMap, a site that compiles information about public charging spots. In a survey of 5,000 drivers by the energy supplier Eon Next, 59 per cent said the cost of going electric was the biggest barrier to making the switch, and 28 per cent cited the lack of public charging infrastructure. Michael Goulden, the cofounder of Kerbo Charge, which has installed about 1,000 gullies across 30 council areas since January 2023, said: 'People repeatedly tell us that home charging is the only way to make the numbers work. Electric cars are more expensive to lease, but they can make it work as the running cost is cheaper than petrol. But only if they can charge from home.' • Can you still save money with an electric car? Drivers can apply for a £350 grant towards the cost of buying a home charger (which typically costs £800 to £1,200) if it is installed alongside some kind of 'cross-pavement solution'. Last month the government also opened a £25 million fund for councils, incentivising them to allow cables 'to run safely beneath pavements'. Some councils including Bromley, Enfield, Lancashire and Suffolk have either trialled or fully approved cross-pavement charging. But other local authorities, despite touting their net-zero credentials, have rebuffed residents' calls to trial them. Lewisham borough council in southeast London told one resident who was keen on trialling a company called Charge Gully that it posed 'an electric and tripping safety hazard'. The council also said in the email in December, seen by The Sunday Times, that gullies raised issues of liability for maintenance or in the case of an accident, and created 'potential access issues for utility companies'. Goulden said there were about 150 residents in Lewisham on his company's waiting list, all unable to install a charging gully because of the council's stance. He said the council had refused to meet the company. He said: 'In London nearly 60 per cent of households have no driveway, and it has the highest level of electric car adoption, so those two together make it the highest priority area to make cross-pavement charging available.' Lewisham council said on its website that it was among the first local authorities to 'declare a climate emergency' in 2019. In its 2024 climate action plan it said its ambition was 'to make Lewisham a place where low-carbon travel is the easy choice'. • Fix our woeful rollout of EV charging to rescue our car industry Lewisham council said there were still concerns about the long-term safety and practicality of cross-pavement charging, including risks to people with mobility challenges, and potential electric shock hazards. It added: 'Even when installed correctly, these mechanisms can degrade over time or be misused, creating hazards homeowners or the council could be held responsible for.' The Sunday Times understands at least 11 councils in London are blocking requests for cross-pavement chargers, as well as Birmingham city council and Oldham borough council in Greater Manchester. Birmingham council, which said 30 per cent of its residential properties have no access to off-street parking, 'does not licence or permit the use of trailing cables on the highway' because it deems them to be a tripping hazard. Installers including Charge Gully and Kerbo Charge have insisted that the lids of their gullies fit flush to the pavement and require little maintenance. • Read more money advice and tips on investing from our experts Goulden said residents would also be liable for any accident involving a cable. 'It's no different to if someone's using a lamppost charger where there's a trailing cable, so there's precedent for that. 'Most car insurers now include cable trip cover provided someone's taken reasonable care. But the whole point of this is that it removes trip hazards. You can walk around a city and see people trailing free-hanging cables along the pavement. A gully would rectify that.' Edward Baker lives in Greenwich, southeast London, and is keen to make the switch to electric. But he has no driveway and there is only one public charger within a 20-minute walk of his house, so the only feasible option for him to afford an electric car would be to install a cross-pavement charger. Baker, 47, has spent almost two years trying to persuade Greenwich council to let him trial a pavement charging channel, installed by Charge Gully using a technique approved by other councils. Charge Gully promises not to compromise pedestrian access, but Baker's efforts have been rebuffed. • Can't charge an electric car at home? Then petrol may be cheaper He said: 'About half of residents here live in terraced houses, so all of them are disadvantaged. It's about five times more expensive to charge on public networks than at home. It feels like this would reduce pressure on government budgets because we would be paying for the gullies ourselves.' The Royal Borough of Greenwich also declared a climate emergency in June 2019, and has 'set an ambitious target to reach net-zero carbon emissions 20 years ahead of the national target of 2030'. It did not respond to a request for comment. Ben Hopkinson from the Centre for Policy Studies, a right-leaning think tank, said: 'Enabling easy access to home charging is one of the biggest barriers to the uptake of electric vehicles. Yet this is another example of the planning system making commonsense solutions more difficult. 'Councils that have made climate emergency pledges should be keen to approve these kerb installations instead of blocking them.' This year the Department for Transport said it was looking at how installing cross-pavement chargers could be made easier. It said: 'We are committed to delivering the charging infrastructure the country needs to drive the switch to electric vehicles.' Has a council blocked your attempts to charge an electric car? Let us know in the comments
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
REVEALED: Students getting into university with three Es at A-level in order to hit Government diversity targets
Students with A-level grades as low as three Es are being enrolled at universities to hit Government diversity targets, data reveals. Figures from admissions body UCAS show many top universities, including the University of East Anglia, Oxford Brookes and Kent University, are accepting severely underperforming students in a bid to fulfil equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) targets. The practice has become widespread across the sector after the Government-sponsored Office for Students (OfS) regulator urged universities to be more 'ambitious' in 'reducing inequality'. It warned them that if they don't narrow the so-called 'access gap' between students by this year, they could face fines. The data – revealed on the UCAS website, which lists all courses available in Clearing and their entry requirements – comes days before pupils receive their A-level exam results on Thursday. It means anyone picking up disappointing results is still likely to be snapped up in Clearing, the process which matches unplaced students with unfilled courses. Data showed students with DDE grades being accepted to study economics at Oxford Brookes, which usually asks for ABB. Kent University has admitted CDD students onto its maths degree, while it officially asks for grades of ABB. And the University of East Anglia has admitted students with CCD on to its American studies course, officially requiring ABB. Meanwhile, those with three D grades have done nursing at the University of South Wales, where standard requirements are BBB. Typically, universities let in students with lower grades – making a 'contextual offer ' – if they reveal on their UCAS form that they suffered disadvantage. A handful also take into account race or gender. In addition, some consider UCAS' listing of poor white males as a disadvantaged group, while the University of South Wales' nursing course takes into account whether students come from an ethnic minority group. These contextual admissions are now being used by a quarter of all British universities, according to Sutton Trust research. In another example, Bournemouth University admitted students with EEE grades onto its computer science course, which ordinarily demands BCC. The university said they came in via an additional 'foundation year', which has much lower entry requirements. Latest Government figures show the number of universities offering foundation years rose from 52 in 2011/12 to 105 in 2021/22, with entrants soaring from just 8,470 to 69,325 over that period. The Government claims foundation years are a 'valuable pathway to higher education, particularly for students from under-represented backgrounds'. But critics questioned whether those achieving low grades would be able to cope with course content. Chris McGovern, of the Campaign for Real Education, told The Mail on Sunday: 'Universities are betraying young people by encouraging them to sign up for courses for which they are not qualified. 'It will mean degree courses will have to be dumbed down. This will do long-term damage to the quality of our public services, the professions and to the economy.' Mr McGovern added that 'the majority of school leavers and, indeed, the country are far better served by vocational training'. The trend developed after universities were ordered to inform the OfS every year on what progress they are making towards EDI targets. In addition, it can be financially beneficial for universities to be less selective as it means they do not need to run loss-making, half-full courses. The OfS said: 'Our aim is that anyone with the ability and desire to pursue higher education can access the life-changing benefits it can bring.' A Department for Education spokesman said: 'While universities are independent from government and responsible for their own admissions decisions, it is essential that quality is maintained and that the students they admit are likely to succeed.' When contacted, Bournemouth, South Wales and East Anglia universities confirmed they use contextual admissions for disadvantaged students but said they maintain high academic standards. The other universities mentioned declined to comment.
