
Which tax rises could Rachel Reeves introduce to pay for the £5bn welfare U-turn?
In the wake of the U-turn, there are now growing questions over how the government will raise the money to fill the black hole in the public finances.
Ministers have already squeezed significant savings out of their departments in cuts that were unveiled at last month's spending review, meaning there is now a mounting expectation that the chancellor will be forced to raise taxes instead.
But Labour's manifesto pledge not to raise taxes on 'working people' leaves the chancellor with a limited number of workable options. A few possibilities were floated by deputy prime minister Angela Rayner in a leaked memo to Rachel Reeves ahead of the spring statement, which saw her urge the chancellor to raise taxes - suggestions which were ignored. But perhaps this week's welfare climbdown will leave the chancellor with no option but to look again at Rayner's suggestions.
Here, The Independent takes a look at a number of tax rises that the government could rely on to raise funds and balance the books.
Tax threshold freezes
The Treasury's most likely move would be to extend the freeze on income tax thresholds. This means that as wages rise with inflation, over the years workers are dragged into higher tax bands and end up paying more.
A freeze on the threshold at which the higher 45 per cent tax rate is paid was one of the options suggested by Ms Rayner in her leaked memo. But there is growing speculation the government could extend the freeze across all tax brackets.
It's a stealth tax, the impacts of which are not felt immediately, meaning it is normally better received among the general public compared with a direct hit to businesses or pay slips. But, if the freeze were extended to the end of the parliament, it could also bring in billions for the Treasury as earnings rise.
The freeze, which is already planned to last until 2028, is expected to drag around two million workers into higher tax bands.
Wealth tax
There have been calls from Labour MPs on the left of the party to introduce a wealth tax, calls which have only grown in the wake of Tuesday's welfare climbdown. Rachael Maskell, the architect of the rebellion which forced the government into shelving key pillars of the bill, demanded the government increase taxes on the very richest to pay for the £5bn climbdown.
Polling conducted by YouGov on behalf of Oxfam on the eve of the spring statement found more than three-quarters of people (77 per cent) would rather the government increase taxes on the very richest to improve public finances than see cuts to public spending. However, such a tax - which could look like a 2 per cent tax on net assets worth more than £10m - is thought to be very hard to implement, and could also lead to some of Britain's highest earners leaving the country.
Pensions
Ms Rayner also called for the lifetime pensions allowance to be reinstated. The allowance, which puts a cap on how much savers can put into their pension pot before a higher rate of tax is applied, was axed by the Tories. Labour had initially planned to reinstate the cap, but the plans were abandoned ahead of the election.
However, amid the controversy over cutting winter fuel payments – and then later reversing the decision – the government may be hesitant to introduce any other policies which would upset pensioners.
Corporation tax
The chancellor could also look at increasing corporation tax for banks – one of the suggestions included in the deputy prime minister's memo.
Politically, its fairly easy to tax banks as there is limited direct impact on voters. But it's important to note that banks in the UK are already highly taxed. They pay normal corporation tax of 25 per cent, plus a bank surcharge of 3 per cent. On top of this, they pay a bank levy of 0.1 per cent of their balance sheets.
Dividends
The deputy prime minister also proposed raising tax rates on dividends - a portion of a company's earnings received by a shareholder - for higher earners.
Currently, tax is not paid on dividend income that falls within your income tax Personal Allowance. There is also a £500 dividend allowance each year, meaning individuals only pay tax on any dividend income above this. Removing it altogether would be worth £325 million a year, HMRC data indicates.
However, there are concerns that raising dividend tax rates could discourage people from investing in companies – which is likely to have a net negative impact on the economy.
Ms Rayner also suggested ending inheritance tax relief on shares listed on the smaller Aim stock market. The Aim stock market is a sub-market of the London Stock Exchange. From April 2026, qualifying Aim shares held at the time of death will be eligible for 50 per cent relief from inheritance tax - but Ms Rayner has suggested ending this entirely.
While these changes might make businesses uncomfortable, they're actually unlikely to raise much money for the Treasury – meaning it's a less likely option for the chancellor.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Telegraph
10 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Disraeli should be on our banknotes. Sadly he won't be
The Bank of England has asked the public's help in designing its new bank notes and suggesting which historial figures should grace them. Having worked as a professional historian for over 40 years and as the author of over 100 books, I venture that I am rather well qualified to offer advice. Indeed I was the historical adviser to the Royal Mail for the set of stamps they issued to mark the millennium. There is one standout candidate who should be honoured by the Bank of England: Benjamin Disraeli. His head on a banknote would be very welcome. It would be a true celebration of Britain's almost unparalleled genius for integration. Disraeli was a highly talented man of Jewish descent, born way outside the purlieux of the elite. This outsider became party leader, prime minister and Peer of the Realm – the Earl of Beaconsfield. A politician able to write effective novels about his country and national heritage, Disraeli believed in and sought to implement modernisation and continuity. He was Edmund Burke transposed into power and policy. Disraeli also helped save British politics from the course that was to wreck so much of Europe in the first half of the twentieth century, that of blood and soil conservatism counterpointed by socialism. Instead, his was a conservatism that rested on the values of an imperial community and a politics of prudence. Moreover, in contrast to William Gladstone's grim, humourless self-righteous Puritanism for the people – think Gordon Brown plus a sideline in assisting fallen women – Disraeli had elan, style and sympathy. Disraeli represented Britain when it was great, tackled international problems with aplomb, and kept the ship of state proudly and powerfully afloat. That all explains why there is no chance Disraeli will go on a banknote. The reasons tell us much about our decline, and loss of sound purpose. The fact is that the new inclusiveness, the politics of Diversity, Equality and Inclusion or DEI, clearly does not apply to Jews any more – if it ever did. DEI is generally thought to permit discrimination against just two groups: white people, especially middle-aged males, and Jews. Disraeli also suffers as a Conservative, indeed the founder of modern Conservatism, for that is not a heritage that is now acceptable in the ' never kissed a Tory' age. It will not help that the great statesman's new biography will be by Andrew Roberts who is a Tory Peer as well as the country's ablest public historian. Recognition of Disraeli will also be rejected due to the prevailing modern opinion that Britain before the appearance of modern socialism was a vicious colonialist oppressor, monstrously cruel both to its own people and any others with whom it dealt. We see this constantly, as with the pejorative use (this occurred in the Commons just this week) of the word 'Dickensian'. The past has always been contentious, but I did not have these problems when advising the Royal Mail just 25 years ago. Since then almost everything prior to 1945 has been peeled away and thrown aside. We all suffer from this. Disraeli would never have made this mistake. He was honoured by contemporaries and should continue to be recognised and honoured today.


Telegraph
10 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The BBC was right to broadcast Bob Vylan
I yield to few in my disdain for the modern BBC. Its partial and sometimes just embarrassingly bad news reporting (yes BBC Verify, we mean you), its starry-eyed inability to manage its own 'talent', and above all its discomfort in disseminating Western history or cultural tradition (see the year-on-year deterioration of the Proms), all show it has moved a long way from its founding Reithian values. So while it's always enjoyable to see the BBC embarrassed, and tempting to join the calls for its director general, Tim Davie, to step down for not pulling the plug on its Glastonbury coverage, I nevertheless don't do so. Serious business must come before transitory pleasure, and urging the BBC to censor its coverage still further seems to me to risk even bigger problems down the line. Why? Well, it's precisely because I don't have confidence in the BBC that I don't trust them to exercise any further discretion over what we can see and hear. Speech that is illegal – and that is unfortunately a very uncertain boundary nowadays, a problem in itself – is one thing. Speech that is just unpleasant is another. The supporters of the original Online Safety Bill had one go, thankfully unsuccessful, at least formally, at banning such 'legal but harmful' language. I don't want to see the BBC given a second chance to police this grey area entirely on its own authority. Now I have had the counter-argument made to me that if a band on the Glastonbury stage had embarked on a rant against criminal immigrants or Islamic dress codes the BBC would have pulled it pronto. Only anti-Semitic hatred (let's call it what it is, we know what 'death to the IDF' means) gets a pass. That's extremely likely. But it's not an argument for banning even more speech, however crude and unpleasant. It's an argument for being more robust, more able to hear unpleasant concepts, and then to judge those retailing them accordingly. Don't get me wrong. I am not suggesting the BBC should actively platform racists and anti-Semites in its programming. But when people on the BBC express such opinions, the BBC shouldn't cut the feed but should let us hear them and judge them. We need to be less like children living in the Harry Potter world where certain words must not be said, and more like adults. Urging broadcasters to exercise more discretion takes us precisely in the wrong direction. The more encouragement you give the BBC to police speech, the more they will use it. They will always err on the side of caution and will always favour their own values. It is already impossible to express doubts about climate change or net zero on the BBC. There is already too much guiding of opinion, reporters telling us someone is making 'fake' or 'unfounded' claims. No. Just tell me what they said and I'll make my own mind up. And that is the second reason for my hesitation in joining the bandwagon. It's the facts that are the problem, not the reporting of the facts. If large numbers of people, otherwise respectable and presumably somewhat affluent, are prepared to chant something pretty close to 'Death to the Jews', don't we need to know that? Isn't it telling us something we ought to be aware of about our society? If 'Bob Vylan' are telling us, apparently to the audience's approval, that they've 'got the gammons on retreat' and 'we're coming for you' to take back 'land that ain't theirs', doesn't that tell us something about how well multiculturalism and integration is going? Let's face it, if the BBC had not let their feed run, none of this would be a news story. We know that because there has been almost no comment about the band Kneecap's words in support of Palestine Action, because the BBC didn't cover it . The BBC rightly reports on the anti-Semitic hate marches across our cities, and covers their disgusting posters and slogans, because we need to know about them. So, when something similar happens in front of their eyes, the right reaction is not to censor it, but to make sure we know about it. The problem is that too many people don't want to know. They prefer to say that multiculturalism is generally working well. 'Yes maybe there are a few problems but basically everyone can get along as long as we don't push it.' That is the attitude that makes it difficult to discuss the cultural consequences of mass immigration. It is the attitude that made it 'inappropriate' to dwell on the rape gangs scandal until about two minutes ago and that helped the gangs get away with it. The problem we have in this country is not too much free speech but too little. We can't face obvious problems and we hide that from ourselves by not discussing them. The BBC is comfortable with that. I'm not. I'd rather have proper, honest, news and debate, and risk people hearing 'inappropriate' comments, than everyone being frightened to open their mouths in case they upset someone. We're not far off that point now. Time to turn back.


Daily Mail
17 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Katie Price forced to move out of £5k-a-month rental property - one year after being evicted from her Mucky Mansion
Katie Price is being forced to move out of her £5k-a-month rental property just one year after being evicted from her Mucky Mansion. The former glamour model, 47, currently lives in a four bedroom, Tudor-style home in rural Sussex. Her famous Mucky Mansion - which she bought in 2014 from Tory peer Francis Maude - was put on the market and later sold in December after she was evicted due to financial issues and a second bankruptcy declaration in March 2024. Speaking on her podcast this week, Katie explained how she has started looking at houses on Rightmove after being told by her landlord that her current house was going up for sale. She said: 'I've got to move house as the guy who owns it wants to sell the house now. So, I've got to go on the house hunt again. 'I might go closer to the kids school. I am gonna talk to the guy, he might let me stay there a bit longer but he might not.' Katie added that she had been looking on Rightmove and continued: 'But if not, I will move closer to the kids school.' The glamour model finally found a buyer for the rundown £1.5million home in December after she slashed the price of the property a second time. Katie, who was evicted for not paying the mortgage, lowered the listing to £1.35million in October after already failing to sell it for the original asking price. It is now being snapped up for £1.15million, a stark contrast to the figure Katie thought the Sussex mansion was worth. A public notice on Rightmove states: 'Mortgagees in possession are now in receipt of an offer for the sum of £1,150,000.' Nonetheless, Katie won't see a penny for the sale as it will be as it will be swallowed up by the debts she previously ran up against the Sussex home. When the home was first listed, a brochure told potential buyers not to fall into Katie's empty pool and also warned the land could be contaminated by waste. An online advert said the pad could be flipped into an 'impressive family house' after refurbishment. Making no mention of its famous former owner, the ad described the property as: 'A substantial detached family home including three reception rooms, nine bedrooms and four bath/shower rooms spread over three floors plus a one-bedroom annexe.' Bailiffs evicted the star and her family from their West Sussex home in May after she failed to keep up payments on the monthly mortgage. The former model had paid £1.35m for the property in 2014 from former Tory peer Francis Maude and it featured in a Channel Four series as she attempted to renovate the house. When she moved out she claimed the house was 'cursed'. Talking about Mucky Mansion she said: 'I've had nothing but bad memories in that house', and insisted moving will be the start of a new chapter in her life. She is currently forking out almost £5,000 per month for her new property. The huge family home, which includes a double garage and open-plan kitchen, will be Katie and her five children's new house.