Pub & restaurant bosses slam Rachel Reeves' tax hikes for sending inflation rate soaring by more than expected
Hospitality chiefs aimed their fire at decisions to raise national insurance costs for firms and called for lower business rates for the suffering sector.
1
Pubs and restaurant bosses angrily hit out at Rachel Reeves today
Credit: PA
The call came as inflation shot up to 3.5 per cent in the year to April which was a steep rise on the month before when it stood at 2.6 per cent.
Kate Nicholls, UK Hospitality boss also hit out at a new packaging tax, known as the "bevvy levy" for also hitting consumers in the pocket.
She said: "Political and tax decisions have consequences for consumer prices - we need downward pressure on regulation and costs of doing business with action on business rates, NICs, packaging and tourism taxes."
Union boss Sharon Graham said the cost and living crisis is "alive and kicking".
Read More Money News
RATE SPIKE UK inflation rate soars by more than expected after millions hit with huge bills
She added that growth and profit must turn into jobs and wages.
Tory shadow Chancellor Mel Stride said that the news was "worrying for families" who are seeing prices spiral.
Why does inflation matter?
INFLATION is a measure of the cost of living. It looks at how much the price of goods, such as food or televisions, and services, such as haircuts or train tickets, has changed over time.
Usually people measure inflation by comparing the cost of things today with how much they cost a year ago. The average increase in prices is known as the inflation rate.
The government sets an inflation target of 2%.
If inflation is too high or it moves around a lot, the Bank of England says it is hard for businesses to set the right prices and for people to plan their spending.
High inflation rates also means people are having to spend more, while savings are likely to be eroded as the cost of goods is more than the interest we're earning.
Low inflation, on the other hand, means lower prices and a greater likelihood of interest rates on savings beating the inflation rate.
But if inflation is too low some people may put off spending because they expect prices to fall. And if everybody reduced their spending then companies could fail and people might lose their jobs.
See our UK inflation guide and our Is low inflation good? guide for more information.
He said: "This morning's news that inflation is up – and now well above the 2% target – is worrying for families.
"We left Labour with inflation bang on target, but Labour's economic mismanagement is pushing up the cost of living for families - on top of the £3,500 hit to households from the Chancellor's damaging Jobs Tax.
"Higher inflation could also mean interest rates stay higher for longer, hitting family finances hard.
"Families are paying the price for the Labour Chancellor's choices.'
Richard Tice, deputy Reform UK leader, said: "Terrible inflation numbers soaring to 3.5% Due to Labour's awful budget and economic mismanagement."
Ms Reeves said: "I am disappointed with these figures because I know cost of living pressures are still weighing down on working people.
"We are long way from the double digit inflation we saw under the previous administration, but I'm determined that we go further and faster to put more money in people's pockets.
"That's why we have increased the minimum wage for millions of working people, frozen fuel duty to protect commuters and struck three trade deals in the past two weeks that will go towards cutting bills."
What does it mean for my money?
Rising inflation reduces people's spending power because things cost more.
Core inflation, which excludes volatile items, also increased, driven mainly by higher household bills like energy and water.
Businesses are passing on increased employment costs to consumers, contributing to inflation.
Rising inflation means prices will rise faster, pushing up grocery and household bills.
The Bank of England may keep interest rates higher for longer to control inflation, which could mean that mortgage rates will rise again.
Rob Wood, at Pantheon Macroeconomics, said he believes inflation will stay around 3.5% for the rest of the year.
He said: "We think the Monetary Policy Committee will have to proceed cautiously.
"We stick with two more rate cuts this year, but are very close to reducing that to only one."
However, this isn't guaranteed.
If economic growth remains slow, the Bank could continue to lower interest rates to encourage spending and investment, helping to give the economy a much-needed boost.
The base rate is currently set at 4.25%, and the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee will next review its level on June 19.
Wage growth is slowing, and job insecurity is rising and this puts more pressure on personal budgets.
While energy bills may fall in the summer, many households are still struggling.
It's important to review budgets, cut wasteful spending, and manage debt.
Homeowners and first-time buyers may be discouraged as interest rate cuts could slow down.
Savers need to be aware that higher inflation reduces the value of their returns.
It's important to secure good savings deals now and consider tax-efficient savings strategies like ISAs to protect savings from tax.
Myron Jobson, senior personal finance analyst at interactive investor, said: "While the increase might come as a shock to households, it's important to remember that CPI inflation is an annual measure, comparing prices to what they were a year ago.
"Britons should approach headline inflation figures with perspective. Everyone has an inflation rate that is unique to them, depending on their individual spending habits.
"It's crucial to focus on maintaining financial resilience in uncertain times – whether by reviewing budgets, building up emergency savings, or managing debt – to better weather any bumps along the road ahead."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Rachel Reeves risk repeating a mistake if she changes inheritance tax
Whenever a government is desperate to raise funds, there is a good chance it will revisit mad and bad ideas before trying something that is proven to work. As Rachel Reeves stares at the prospect of a black hole in the public finances — ranging from £20 billion to £70 billion, according to various estimates — it is clear that the chancellor cannot dig down the back of the sofa to plug the gap at the next budget. If these estimates are to be believed, dramatic spending cuts or big tax rises will be required to keep within her fiscal rules. Some Labour figures have duly called for a wealth tax, to squeeze the pips out of the country's richest who are already fleeing in rising numbers. Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, is said to have privately urged Ms Reeves to clamp down on the rich; Lord Kinnock, the former party leader, has done so publicly. Thankfully this unwise idea has been dismissed as 'daft' by Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary, which hopefully means it has been discarded. Yet another such bad idea has floated into the public domain: reworking inheritance tax. Reports suggest that Treasury officials have been tasked with examining how assets are being given away before death to reduce liabilities. Under current rules, gifts made seven years or more before someone's death are not captured by inheritance tax. Any gifts handed over after that are taxed at varying rates. The Treasury is said to be examining whether a lifetime cap should be introduced and whether the so-called 'taper rates' on gifts given up to seven years beforehand need to be reworked. It is unclear whether these ideas have yet to reach the chancellor's desk. • Angela Rayner gives Labour a 12-month mission to save itself Were Ms Reeves to pursue changes to inheritance tax, it would represent the apotheosis of the Starmer government's all-pain, no-gain approach to governing. First, changing the rules on inheritance tax would not raise the projected £40 billion required to plug the gap in the public finances. Families would simply find workarounds to avoid strenuous new levies, just as they have done under the present regime. There is a risk that the government would go to great effort to craft new inheritance tax rules, only to find that it fails to deliver what was hoped for and it is back to square one. Second, it is political suicide. There are few issues more likely to incite fury among the electorate than a stricter inheritance tax regime. Swathes of middle England who have carefully accrued capital will punish any party that seeks to take it away. Gordon Brown realised this when mulling over calling an election in 2007, taking fright from the Conservative's plans to raise the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million. And finally, it is morally wrong. Inheritance tax is a levy on those who have worked hard throughout their lives to earn something to pass onto the next generation. The chancellor must draw a line under this speculation, which will prove damaging to her personally the longer it continues. There are better options available, such as tackling the ballooning welfare bill, with spending on disability benefits set to reach £100 billion by the end of the decade. There is also the dire state of productivity in the public sector, which is costing the economy £80 billion a year, as this newspaper reported yesterday. After £40 billion of tax rises in her first budget suffocated economic growth, Ms Reeves would be wise to learn and not repeat the same error.
The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
UK benefits bill will hit £100bn with one million more on Universal Credit under Labour – I know how to fix it
CHANCELLOR Rachel Reeves is walking Britain into an alligator pit of maxed-out borrowing, higher taxes and stuttering growth. But there is something else now snapping at her high-tax heels — the soaring number of people on out-of-work benefits. 2 2 New figures this week showed that, since Labour took office, there are now over one million MORE people on Universal Credit — that's the size of the population of Birmingham. By 2030, the cost of sickness benefits alone will reach £100billion — more than the entire defence budget. Thousands of people are being written off, their potential wasted. And with hardworking families set to be clobbered by further tax hikes this autumn, Sun readers will rightly ask, 'What is going on?'. As the Work and Pensions Secretary responsible for getting Britain to record employment levels in the 2010s, I know that unless they get welfare under control, taxpayers face a tax bomb overwhelming them this autumn. 'Work instilled pride' To recap, before Covid, my reforms put a hard cap on unemployment benefits and combined them so that jobseekers were always better off in work. We brought in tough new rules and a contract for claimants to sign in return for their benefits, ensuring they looked for a job and took one, with a work coach's help. With this approach, we got 1,600 people into jobs every single day. Workless households fell to their lowest level ever. And half a million more children grew up seeing a parent going out to earn a living — changing their life chances forever. I took the view that work was more than just a paycheck but, importantly, it instilled purpose and pride in your life. Sadly, in 2020, Covid lockdowns saw benefit assessments massively relaxed and sanctions suspended. Meetings were shunted online and never held in person again — a terrible error. Meanwhile, perverse incentives crept into the system, allowing more and more people on to (significantly more generous) sickness benefits. Since then, long-term sickness claims have exploded, rising to almost 3,000 per day. The number of people receiving Personal Independent Payments for anxiety and depression has trebled. Meanwhile, the number of households where no one has ever worked has also risen. Analysis by the think tank I set up, The Centre For Social Justice, found that once all benefits are totted up, you can now receive £2,500 a year more on benefits than someone would receive on the national living wage after tax. In other cases, such as a single parent claiming for anxiety and a child with ADHD, total annual support can reach nearly £37,000 — over £14,000 more than the same person would earn through wages alone. A system designed to protect disabled people in genuine need has morphed into one that too often disincentivises work, traps people in long-term dependency and leaves them without meaningful support to recover. This isn't the whole story. There are, at the extremes, young and old at both edges of the welfare crisis. With almost one million youngsters not in education, employment or training (NEET), the epidemic of school absences could yet see an extra 180,000 pupils join their ranks. And we are leaking talent and experience out of the workforce at an alarming rate, with record numbers of people aged 50-64 on out-of-work benefits. The government must start by addressing the surge in claims since the pandemic, particularly for mental health. But the government has got off to a bad start. The Treasury's push to get quick savings in time for the spring resulted in a rebellion by Labour backbenchers and a U-turn costing £3billion. Yet this ballooning welfare bill has to be tackled, and the CSJ has shown there is a way. First, tighten eligibility for benefits to people with more severe mental health conditions while reinvesting the savings in the support we know genuinely helps people to recover. In-person assessments and benefit sanctions for those failing to seek work must be restored in full. The CSJ shows that this would save over £7billion, a large portion of which should be spent radically expanding NHS therapy and back-to-work help. Second, we need to stop people falling out of work in the first place. 'Young hardest hit' Medicalising the ups and downs of life has resulted in 93 per cent of consultations with a GP ending up with someone signed off altogether rather than keeping them in their job. A proper work and health system should take 'sick notes' provision off GPs, allowing them to devote their time to people, particularly those aged 50–64, needing workplace adjustments. Third, I worry more each day about Britain's young people. The government's National Insurance rises have put up wage costs, making businesses less likely to give them a chance. Young people are the hardest hit by the £25billion jobs tax. Instead, the Chancellor should cut taxes on jobs and introduce a new tax credit for businesses hiring young British NEETS, a CSJ proposal backed by many employers who have called for this. Our post-Covid ballooning welfare bill has to be tackled urgently. But as employment numbers fall in response to higher taxes, Reeves has made it harder to do this. Getting people back to work is critical for us all.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Labour's inheritance tax must be scrapped
How have we managed to create a world where a dwindling band of taxpayers is funding a growing number of able-bodied people to live relatively comfortably on benefits without even being required to look for work? As the welfare bill balloons, the Government has to find more money because its own MPs will not let it cut payments or tighten the rules. Since the Chancellor Rachel Reeves has promised not to increase borrowing or add to the taxes of so-called 'working people' she is forced to look elsewhere, notably at pensions and savings. Now she is targeting inheritance tax (IHT) to plug holes in the finances ahead of an autumn Budget. Treasury officials have been told to examine greater restrictions on gifting money and assets. The tax burden is at its highest for nearly 80 years. Taxpayers who are by no means rich are dragged into paying higher rates by the pernicious freezing of allowances. The minority of earners who contribute the most in taxes have gone along with this in the expectation of being able to help their children with any accumulated wealth left to them by a rapacious state. If the morality of this tax is questionable, tougher rules are not even politically advantageous. Polling shows it is probably the most unpopular tax of all, even among people who are unlikely to have to pay it. It would be a desperate act to tighten the rules further, but Ms Reeves is cornered. IHT is a tax on the prudent and family-minded. It involves being taxed when you die on wealth that was taxed while being accumulated in life, and therefore discourages wealth creation and retention. In drawing up their new policies, the Tories should commit to its abolition.
