Reeves says protections remain for ‘working people' amid wealth tax speculation
But she said promises not to increase income tax, national insurance and value added tax (VAT) remained in place, along with her 'non-negotiable' fiscal rules.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves declined to rule out a wealth tax, pointing out a date had not yet been set for the budget (Anthony Devlin/PA)
The Government's U-turns over welfare reform and winter fuel payments have left the Chancellor with a multi-billion black hole to fill, fuelling speculation she might target the assets of the wealthy.
Asked to rule that out, Ms Reeves told reporters: 'We haven't even set the date for the budget yet, so please forgive me if I'm not going to speculate about what might happen at an event that we haven't even decided a date on yet.
'But we've been really clear in our manifesto about the taxes that we won't increase, and we're not going to increase the taxes that working people pay, their income tax, their national insurance and their VAT, because I do recognise the struggle that ordinary working people have faced these last few years with the cost of living.'
She added that her fiscal rules were 'non-negotiable' as 'they are what give working people security, around interest rates for example'.
The narrow margin by which the Chancellor is on course to meet her goal of funding day-to-day spending through revenues rather than borrowing means she is vulnerable to any increase in debt interest costs or reductions in planned savings, such as on welfare.
Ms Reeves said: 'Interest rates have come down four times in the last year under this Labour Government because of the stability that we've managed to return to the economy, which is underpinned by those fiscal rules, which have enabled the Bank of England to cut interest rates.'
The Bank's governor Andrew Bailey has suggested there could be larger cuts if the jobs market shows signs of weakness, pointing to the impact of Ms Reeves' decision to hike employers' national insurance contributions (NICs).
Businesses are 'adjusting employment' as a result of the NICs increase and workers are 'also having pay rises that are possibly less than they would have been if the NICs change hadn't happened', he said.
In an interview with The Times, the governor said the British economy was growing behind its potential.
(PA Graphics)
This could open up 'slack' to bring down inflation, he said, meaning prices on goods would rise less swiftly compared with earnings in future.
Mr Bailey said he believes the base rate set by the Bank of England would be lowered in future, after it was held in June.
The current Bank rate of 4.25%, which has a bearing on all lending in the UK – including mortgages – will be reviewed again on August 7 by the Bank's Monetary Policy Committee.
'I really do believe the path is downward,' Mr Bailey told The Times.
He added: 'But we continue to use the words 'gradual and careful' because… some people say to me 'why are you cutting when inflation's above target?''
Treasury Chief Secretary Darren Jones said it was entirely normal for firms to adjust their business plans because of a tax hike.
He told Times Radio: 'We've also seen the creation of hundreds of thousands of new jobs across the country, and it's normal for business to make adjustments to their plans, depending on the cost of business, in the normal way.
'But we're really focused as a Government in supporting business to create more jobs.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Western Telegraph
30 minutes ago
- Western Telegraph
No 10 says work on repealing Legacy Act ‘in lockstep' but minister may quit
Sir Keir Starmer's Government plans to repeal and replace the Legacy Act, brought in by the Conservatives in 2023 to halt investigations into all but the most serious allegations involving Troubles-related cases. Human rights groups criticised the act for providing immunity to British soldiers. But opponents to scrapping it fear that the changes will open up a 'two-tier' system in which IRA members are given immunity but British troops are open to prosecution. Veterans minister Al Carns is expected to quit over plans to repeal the law, The Times reported. A No 10 spokesman said the Government was 'working in lockstep' when asked if Mr Carns agreed with Sir Keir's approach, a No 10 spokesman said. 'The Government is always working in lockstep to deal with issues such as this, and we're working in lockstep to fix this issue and the mess that we were left.' 'And as I say, we will set out a process that gives veterans and their families confidence and sets out a process that's proportionate, that's not malicious, that has safeguards in place, and fixes the mess that we were left with. He said the Government was setting out a course that is 'lawful with fairness at its heart' and that 'we will always protect our veterans'.
Daily Mirror
36 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Xander Schauffele sent strong message from dad over £148m LIV Golf offer
Xander Schauffele was offered up to £148m ($200m) to join the LIV Golf breakaway league, but his father Stefan urged him to remain loyal to the PGA Tour Xander Schauffele notably valued silverware over a staggering £148million enticement from LIV Golf, a decision backed by his father. Despite the lure of an enormous payday and new opportunities, his choice to forgo the breakaway tour was steered by sage advice from his father and former coach, Stefan Schauffele. The American golfer is set to tee off at The Open Championship this week, with the aim of retaining the Claret Jug for his trophy cabinet. Schauffele was made an offer that ranged between an approximate £111m and £148m to defect from the PGA Tour to the LIV Golf series, illustrating just how lucrative the Saudi-backed golf circuit has become. But it wasn't purely paternal counsel that influenced the 31-year-old's decision to stay put; concerns over the restriction on world-ranking points available on the rival circuit could hinder participation in major tournaments played a part. The world-ranking tally was crucial for up-and-coming stars like Schauffele, who wanted to etch their names in sporting history rather than the richest athletes list. In an unequivocal stance, Stefan made it clear that even a fortune worth double their original offer would not tempt them away from the integrity of traditional competition. He told The Times: "They could've doubled the money and we still wouldn't do it." That firm stance seemed to pay dividends when Schauffele secured back-to-back majors: the PGA Championship followed by The Open, notching almost £5m in winnings from those high-profile victories alone. His bank balance increased greatly with £2.3m from The Open win and £2.5m from his PGA Championship glory. Schauffele and his father Stefan, who has served as his swing coach and agent, have shared the emotional highs of their incredible journey together, including Xander's gold medal win at the 2021 Tokyo Olympics. Recounting the triumph, Xander said: "That was a seriously emotional moment." The success also deeply touched Stefan, who added: "You're going to make me cry just thinking about it. He understood how huge the Olympics was for me. We got in the car and he gave me the medal and said, 'This is for you.'" With The Open Championship on the horizon, Schauffele is eyeing yet another addition to his already impressive accolades, while aiming to make his dad proud once more. But winning won't be easy, as golf sensations like Rory McIlroy and Scottie Scheffler are also vying for their second major win of the year, promising a riveting challenge for the Claret Jug.
ITV News
an hour ago
- ITV News
What are superinjunctions and why were the media prevented from reporting on the Afghan relocations?
An unprecedented superinjunction prevented the public from finding out thousands of Afghans were being relocated to the UK after data about their work with British forces was leaked online. The scheme, called the Afghanistan Response Route, was set up after a dataset containing the personal information of nearly 19,000 people who applied for the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) was released 'in error' in February 2022 by a defence official. Arap was responsible for relocating Afghan nationals who had worked for or with the UK Government and were therefore at risk of reprisals once the Taliban returned to power in Kabul in 2021. An unprecedented superinjunction was made at the High Court in September 2023 to reduce the risk of alerting the Taliban to the existence of the data, with the decision to apply for an order made by then-defence secretary Ben Wallace. It was lifted on Tuesday, and it is believed to be the longest-lasting order of its kind and the first time the government has sought such a restrictive measure against the media. The Afghanistan Response Route has led to around 900 Arap applicants and approximately 3,600 family members have been brought to the UK or are in transit so far. It is understood to have cost the taxpayer £400 million so far, with a projected cost once completed of around £850 million. What is an injunction? An injunction is a court order to either prevent someone from doing something or direct them to do it. They can be used in a variety of contexts, including in family and civil courts, and can be used to prevent publishing information or naming people. Injunctions can be temporary, known as interim injunctions, or longer term – either until a future date or until a further order is made. Breaching an injunction can be considered a contempt of court, which can be punished by up to two years in prison or an unlimited fine. The vast majority of injunctions referred to in the media are plain injunctions and their existence can be reported but their subjects, or at least some of them, cannot be identified. Who can they affect? Injunctions can either be against named people and organisations or 'persons unknown' committing certain acts, often seen in cases related to groups of protesters or anonymous hackers. They can be made 'against the world', meaning that any third parties who are aware of the injunction are also covered by it, even if they are not named on the order. However, injunctions are limited to the jurisdiction of the court – in this case, England and Wales. In 2016, a celebrity known only as PJS won a Supreme Court battle to keep an injunction barring The Sun on Sunday from identifying him in connection with alleged extra-marital sexual activities, even though his name can be found on the internet. What makes an injunction 'super'? Usually, the fact that an injunction exists can be reported. However, a superinjunction means that their very existence is supposed to be unreportable. In 2018, the Daily Telegraph published a front page story about a 'scandal which cannot be revealed' after a businessman – later named in Parliament as Sir Philip Green – obtained an injunction against the newspaper preventing it from publishing misconduct allegations. The newspaper was able to publish the story – without naming Sir Philip – because the businessman had not obtained a superinjunction. But in the case of the newly revealed data breach, journalists from multiple media organisations, including the Daily Mail, Global and the PA news agency, have been prevented from publishing any reference to the proceedings about the data breach until the superinjunction was lifted. The fact that it was a superinjunction also prevented the journalists from discussing the case with colleagues who were not part of the proceedings, as well as members of the public. Why was this superinjunction unprecedented? A few reasons. Firstly, it is thought this was the first time that the government has sought such an order against the media. The length of the proceedings also made this case the first of its kind. Court documents show that the Ministry of Defence originally asked for the superinjunction to last approximately four months, however, it took more than two years for the order to be lifted after it was made in September 2023, including multiple closed-door High Court hearings. A report of the Committee on Superinjunctions, set up in 2010, said it was rare for superinjunctions to be applied for, and "even rarer for them to be granted on anything other than an anti-tipping-off, short-term basis". This superinjunction was also made "against the world", not just against named media organisations, meaning that any third parties who became aware of the proceedings were covered by the order. This was repeatedly described as unprecedented by lawyers involved in the process. Mr Justice Chamberlain, the judge who oversaw most of the proceedings, over time became exasperated with the government's commitment to the superinjunction. In his first decision in November 2023, the judge said that granting the superinjunction to the government 'is likely to give rise to understandable suspicion that the court's processes are being used for the purposes of censorship,' adding: 'This is corrosive of the public's trust in government.' At one point, he said: "It is fundamentally objectionable for decisions that affect the lives and safety of thousands of human beings, and involve the commitment of billions of pounds of public money, to be taken in circumstances where they are completely insulated from public debate." When have superinjunctions been granted in the past? One of the earliest known applications for a superinjunction dates back to 2009 when oil traders Trafigura attempted to use one to prevent The Guardian newspaper from reporting on allegations that the company was responsible for dumping toxic waste in the Ivory Coast. Footballer John Terry was granted a superinjunction, which was lifted in January 2010, allowing him to be named as the footballer behind the superinjunction involving his private life. He was reported to have had an affair with the ex-girlfriend of former Chelsea teammate Wayne Bridge. In November 2010 the Court of Appeal lifted a superinjunction preventing the naming of Take That's Howard Donald, who was granted an order restraining publication of confidential information by a former girlfriend. In 2011, Ryan Giggs was named in Parliament as having obtained a superinjunction preventing the publisher of the News Of The World from identifying him as the footballer who had an affair with reality TV star Imogen Thomas. Parliamentary privilege grants certain legal immunities for members of both Houses of Parliament to allow them to perform their duties without interference from outside of the House. How many superinjunctions currently exist? The very nature of superinjunctions means their existence should not be known, and therefore, the true number may not be known. However, in April last year, Lord Rogan asked a written question in the House of Lords, inquiring how many superinjunctions were currently in effect in England and Wales. Lord Bellamy, then parliamentary under secretary of state in the Ministry of Justice, replied to say there was 'one superinjunction in force which was made in the King's Bench Division of the High Court'.
