What tax rises could you face as government battles to fix the UK's finances?
Rachel Reeves ' 'dream job' of becoming Chancellor must fast be feeling like a nightmare.
Saddled with an eye-watering national debt, left to clear up the mess from the Tories and 15 years of pitiful economy growth, and hemmed in on all sides, she and Labour have a battle on their hands after the first year back in office.
To hammer it home, the Office for Budget Responsibility recently published its doom-laden summing-up of the country's plight, which included warning from its boss Richard Hughes that: 'The UK cannot afford the array of promises that are displayed to the public.' It further fuelled talk of tax rises in the Autumn Budget, with the debate set to rage.
Labour is sticking with its manifesto pledge to not raise income tax, national insurance contributions, and VAT - which together account for two-thirds - of all tax collected. So just what is the state of the country's finances, and what options does the Chancellor have to boost the coffers?
The problem
The numbers are almost unfathomable. Take how much the UK owes - public sector net debt - at more than £2.8trillion. That is almost as big as what the UK churns out a year - gross domestic product - at 96.4%, the highest level barring the Covid pandemic since 1963.
With borrowing soaring, so is the interest racked-up on the nation's credit card. The OBR predicts we will shell out £111billion on debt interest alone this year, around half the NHS 's entire annual budget. One reason is the rates the UK has to borrow - among the highest for any major economy - and more than double Germany's. Shelling out that much means less for the government to spend on essential services. And with outlays outstripping tax income, that means still higher borrowing.
Income tax
One option is extending the freeze at which income tax and national insurance kicks in.
By 2028/29, it is set to mean 4.2 million more people paying income tax, 3.5 million the higher rate of 40%, and another 600,000 the higher still 45% band. Ms Reeves has previously ruled extending the freeze beyond April 2028 because it would 'hurt working people'. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) says pushing it back to the end of parliament would raise up to £10billion.
James Smith, an economist at ING Bank, said: 'The only obvious piece of low hanging fruit is to extend the tax threshold freeze.'
But dragging even more people into paying tax - or the higher band - would be controversial. Another option is raising the 45% rate to 50%. Paul Johnson, until recently head of the IFS, warned there was 'real uncertainty' about how much it would raise.
Wealth tax
Former Labour leader Lord Kinnock recently reignited the debate over a wealth tax by suggesting a 2% levy on assets of above £10million would bring in up to £11billion a year. Downing Street fuelled speculation by not ruling it out.
A wealth tax has overwhelming public support but experts say it is devilishly hard to implement, as other countries have found. 'The top 1% of income taxpayers are paying about 30% of income tax,' Paul Johnson told The Rest Is Money podcast.
Critics also argue it will drive the super wealthy away - something campaigners reject. Other options could include the effective 60% tax band on incomes between £100,000 and £125,140.
But a far more radical route would be overhauling the council tax system. Mr Johnson said: 'A £50million mansion in Westminster pays about the same council tax as a three-bed semi in Hartlepool. It is utterly outrageous.' It would be game-changer but there is a reason successive government have dodged reform. As well as being time consuming, it's home owners in property pricey southern England who would likely come off worse.
Pensions
Taxing pensions is 'where you can get really serious money,' is Paul Johnson's view, but he warned doing so would be 'terrible idea'.
There was speculation ahead of the last Autumn Budget about the amount that people could take tax-free from their pension. In the end, nothing changed, but reports suggest it spooked a flood of people to rush to withdraw savings.
A more targeted move could be to cut the upfront tax relief on pension contributions for higher rate taxpayers. Limiting it could raise £15billion a year, say reports, but may also hit middle income workers, including some teachers, nurses and other public sector staff. Labour will also be conscious of not doing anything that deters ordinary people saving for their retirement.
One big outlay for the government that looks unlikely to change is the 'triple lock' pledge, the promise that the state pension will rise every year by average wages, inflation or 2.5% - whichever is higher.
Fuel duty
The levy on petrol and diesel used to rise in line with inflation but was frozen in 2011. Successive government maintained the freeze, and the Tories announces a supposed temporary 5p cut in 2022 - that stayed.
Fuel duty is set to bring in £24.4billion for the Treasury this year, equivalent to £850 per household. But the Social Market Foundation estimates maintaining the freeze has deprived the exchequer of about £130billion.
Changing the duty - even ending the 5p cut - risks backfiring on the government, given the hit to ordinary drivers. But encouraging motorists to switch to electric cars - the government unveiled taxpayer-funded grants of up to £3,750 this week - mean the tax take from duty is likely to fall.
Businesses
Labour suffered a backlash from firms when it hiked employers' national insurance in April, in a move designed to raise £25billion a year. Business lobby groups have already warned against using the next Budget to unleash another raid.
Corporation tax generates a lot for the Treasury, but Labour has pledged to cap the headline rate at 25% for the lifetime of the this Parliament. It could look at tinkering with other levies, including the bank levy and surcharge. But the Chancellor will be keen to not do anything that will further hit growth.
As Helen Miller, the new director of the IFS, said this week: 'I think growth should be the number one mission. We should be throwing the kitchen sink at it', as she questioned whether Labour was doing enough on that front.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
13 minutes ago
- New Statesman
This government will live or die by housing
Photo byAfter a summer break, Labour want to take on Britain's 'dysfunctional' housing and land markets. They want to make them fairer for those who want to buy homes to live in and less of a boon for 'speculative' investors. And although Labour's much-awaited long-term housing strategy will not be published before recess, Housing and Planning Minister Matthew Pennycook has hinted that if year one was about laying the groundwork for Labour's housing plan, year two will be significantly more radical. It is a testament to the functionality of Pennycook's department – the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) – that it rarely makes headlines in the way that, say, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) or Treasury do. Between them, Rayner and Pennycook have delivered on manifesto commitments by tweaking legislation in a quietly radical and efficient way. The Renters' Rights Bill will soon become law. Similarly, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill is paving the way for urgent planning reform, which, though not radical for some because environmental considerations must still be factored into planning approval, will make clever tweaks to existing frameworks for delivering development, such as beefing up the compulsory purchase powers of public bodies to stop the sale of land for development at inflated prices. Leasehold reforms, similarly, have been amped up, and there is reportedly more to come. With legislative changes that former Tory Housing Secretary Michael Gove wanted but could never get through his own party, Pennycook wants to step things up and reform the housing market once and for all by 'addressing the financialisation of housing', and 'ending our overreliance on a speculative model of development that… constrains housing supply.' Punchy in theory, so how will it work in reality? Ministers are exploring ways to give people who want to buy homes to live in them, as opposed to as an investment, an advantage. This could include implementing rules that stipulate new homes can only be sold to local people who will live in them, as Cornwall Council have done to protect hard-won new housing developments and prevent new housing being sold to investors. Labour have suggested that they will similarly protect homes in their new towns. Developers who buy up land, obtain planning permission to build, but then, instead of actually building anything, sit on the land and wait for it to rise in value, will be penalised and blocked from planning permission in the future. The sites for a 'new generation' of around a dozen new towns, like those built post-war, have also been plotted on a map to be announced imminently. Pennycook is determined that these will be built out quickly and purposefully. Ministers are thought to be considering giving Homes England more regional power so that it can be involved in planning at a local level, ensuring that the right homes are built in the right places. New towns will also be overseen by development corporations with their own governance structure, taking some decisions away from local councils and putting them in the hands of bodies specifically tasked with getting things built. These public bodies will be able to invoke the new rules on compulsory purchase to get hold of land cheaply and build homes and infrastructure on it. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Rayner and Pennycook need to get this all over the line, and fast. The stakes couldn't be higher. Labour will be judged harshly on whether they can be bolder and go further than the governments of recent decades, who presided over an increasingly dysfunctional housing market and did little to nothing. But, more importantly, there is now not a single part of Britain which is not impacted by this country's sclerotic housing market. Since the 1970s, house price-to-income ratios have more than doubled nationwide, pricing younger generations out of homeownership, ushering in 35- and even 40-year mortgages, and trapping nearly 5 million households in an expensive and unstable private rental sector. That's more than the number living in social and council housing, which not only provides secure and affordable homes but also provides a return for the state through rent. None of this is new. The housing crisis was fast becoming one of the defining issues of modern life when Labour lost to David Cameron in 2010. But the situation is worse than it ever was. Week after week, new lows are reached. Housing makes headlines for all the wrong reasons. Rising homelessness is now such a grotesque new normal that it rarely makes a front page. So is the increasing number of homeless families, and, at last count, 164,000 children who are forced to live in temporary accommodation. That's anywhere from a hotel to a converted office block and, even, a converted shipping container. And, of course, these bleak statistics don't capture the misery of the people who can afford their rent, just as long as they don't put the heating on, let alone contemplate a holiday. They also don't tell the story of the anguish of young adults who can't afford family-sized homes, or who still live at home in their twenties and thirties, and those whose mortgages have recently jumped up due to higher rates, swallowing chunks of their disposable income in the process. The human suffering caused by expensive housing and homelessness also has an economic impact. Housing costs consume ever-larger amounts of public money. A rise in the number of lower-income households relying on private renting has meant that the Housing Benefit Bill is predicted to rise to £35bn by 2028. That's more than the total spend of many government departments. Temporary accommodation now costs councils £2.3bn a year. As the Chartered Institute for Housing has pointed out, these expanding bills mean only 12 per cent of government spending on housing in 2022 went towards new buildings, compared to 95 per cent in 1976. High rents and mortgage costs, relative to income, also mean that young people today, who are less likely to be homeowners than their elders, are spending disposable income that could be contributing to growth through either the consumption of goods and services or investment on their homes. In the end, those who do the reading draw the same conclusions about what William Beveridge described as 'the problem of housing' in this country back in 1942 – affordable housing is the only way to prevent people becoming homeless and unwell and, in doing so, reduce the pressure on the state to support them. Before he backed down on housing reform and bowed out, Gove had realised this. He started to talk about the problem that the impact of extractive 'rentier economics' was having in Britain. The phrase was not a borrowing from Gary Stevenson, let alone Friedrich Engels. Downstream from Adam Smith via Thomas Piketty, Gove said it during a 2024 interview with that leftie rag the Financial Times. The Tory grandee correctly identified that Britain's housing crisis would be the death knell for his party because younger generations were at the sharp end of it. After all, why would any young person vote Conservative if they have no assets to conserve? However you slice it, the housing crisis is emotionally and financially draining us all. Economists (like Smith and latterly Piketty) have pointed this out for centuries. Labour knows that fixing housing will be key to their electoral survival. But, more than that, they know that it is the right thing to do. With one year down and four left of Labour's first term, the clock is well and truly ticking. After all, imagine a baby born into homelessness, to a family with one bedroom emergency temporary accommodation when Labour entered Downing Street last year will be five and in need of space to grow and do homework and play in no time at all. [Further reading: Immigrants did not cause Britain's social housing shortage] Related
The Guardian
13 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Even the Tories now admit that our electoral system is toxic. When will Labour have the guts to fix it?
'Gerrymandering!' cry those on the right. But the government's plan for voting reform, which will allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote in the next general election, isn't to Labour's advantage. Voters of this age are unlikely to favour the incumbent government they have grown up with. Though lowering the voting age was a manifesto promise, real electoral reform was nowhere in the manifesto. Real reform would mean abolishing the broken, discredited, untrusted and unsafe first-past-the-post system. Keir Starmer often promises to put country before party. But as this year's British Social Attitudes survey found, only 12% of people trust governments to put the country's interest before their own party's. Labour can prove them wrong by fixing a fragile democracy in grave danger. It needs moral nerve to admit the system that elected it – allowing Labour to win 64% of seats with just 34% of votes – lacks legitimacy. In the words of the Electoral Reform Society, the 2024 result was 'not only the most disproportional election in British electoral history, but one of the most disproportional seen anywhere in the world'. The next election threatens to be far worse, when a vote below 30% could produce an unwanted winner as five or six parties get crushed into a two-party system. Voters know they need a louder voice: for the first time, 60% of them – including 52% of Conservative voters – support the introduction of proportional representation (PR), according to polling last month. Electoral reform could be their only salvation. This seismic shift in public attitudes has prompted some surprising shifts. Robert Colvile, head of the Centre for Policy Studies, the thinktank founded by Margaret Thatcher and Keith Joseph, writes in the Sunday Times: 'I've always hated PR … partly because its strongest supporters tend to be the kind of muesli-eating sandal-wearers who have never had a correct opinion in their lives.' But he adds: 'Cracks … have been appearing in my implacable dislike,' before concluding that electoral reform is something 'we really need' to do. Meanwhile, on the Conservative Home website, the former MP and Tory grandee Nigel Evans, after years of adamantly opposing reforms to the first-past-the-post system, now warns against 'sleepwalking' into 'a huge majority for one party but no real mandate'. He is calling for a royal commission to review the British voting system. Nigel Farage may become the outlier. He has always hammered first past the post for killing off new parties – despite winning 14% of votes in last year's election, Reform UK secured only five MPs. On the morning after the vote, Farage blasted: 'Our outdated first-past-the-post electoral system is not fit for purpose and we will campaign with anyone and everyone to change this election system.' But in May's council elections, Reform's 32% vote share was rewarded with 41% of the council seats up for grabs. The party also gained control of 10 councils. Now leading in the polls, Farage has spoken of an 'inversion point' at which first past the post 'becomes your friend'. He reckons Reform may be at that point. Expect him to now go silent on the issue (unless his ratings drop and he clambers back on to the campaign for proportional representation). As for Labour, its 2022 conference passed a non-binding motion to introduce PR in its first term. Alan Renwick, a UCL professor and deputy director of the Constitution Unit, warns that it's virtually unknown anywhere in the world for a governing party to introduce reforms against its own interests. But times have changed: Labour could regain trust with a country-not-party stand to prevent the perverse results it benefited from last time. The risks ahead are unprecedented. The psephologist and former YouGov president Peter Kellner has written in a number of excellent blogs that 'the prospect of a democratic disaster is real'. He was no electoral reformer – until now. Changing the voting system to prevent a Farage win could look like dirty politics. But here's what has changed. Kellner's historical analysis shows that British elections have always ended up with the government more people chose, even where results appeared contrary. Labour wasn't loved, but throwing out the Tories was the priority shared among most voters. Should Farage become prime minister, Kellner writes, 'for the first time in living memory, the country is likely to have a government that most people really don't want'. Reform scores first as the party that voters would never support. Farage is the leader whom most people want the least. Starmer is preferred by 44% of people when set against Farage, with the Reform leader backed by 29%. Yet despite Farage's unprecedented unpopularity, he could become prime minister with a 29% share of the vote. At this crisis point, it would be an unforgivable dereliction of duty should Labour fail to act. A proportional system gives fair seats for fair votes: there's no need to delve into the complicated mathematical formula of the de Hondt method to prove that. Kellner calls for the simplest safeguard against the most unpopular choice winning, the alternative vote, which is not a form of proportional representation but how all parties select leaders and candidates. Instead of marking an 'X' next to their preferred candidate, voters rank candidates in order. If none of them top 50%, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their votes are reassigned according to the second preferences expressed on the ballot papers. The process continues until one candidate receives more than 50% of the vote and, as the least hated, is declared the winner. Labour would have won the last election using this voting system, but not with a landslide. Alternative voting can be introduced instantly and doesn't ask MPs to vote for a system that would put their seats in jeopardy. Politically, it discourages extremism, because every party seeks other parties' second preferences. Kellner would introduce it now with a referendum only after people had tried it at the next election. Labour has the muscle, but does it dare act? The 2011 referendum on alternative voting was a fiasco, in which Dominic Cummings cut his Brexit teeth with a campaign of breathtaking mendacity. The government would certainly get overwhelming support for a royal commission consulting widely and reporting fast. They must act now, before our broken system causes a democratic calamity. Polly Toynbee is a Guardian columnist
Reuters
13 minutes ago
- Reuters
UK borrowing climbs as inflation pushes up debt costs
LONDON, July 22 (Reuters) - Britain borrowed more than expected in June as high inflation added to the government's debt costs, according to official data that is likely to add to speculation about the need for fresh tax increases later this year. Public sector net borrowing totalled 20.7 billion pounds ($27.88 billion) last month, the data showed. Britain's budget watchdog, the Office for Budget Responsibility, forecast borrowing of 17.1 billion pounds in June when it published its outlook in March. That was before a strong inflation reading in April had the effect of pushing up inflation-linked government bond payments. Tuesday's data from the Office for National Statistics showed interest payable on central government debt was 16.4 billion pounds in June, the second-highest June central government interest bill since monthly records began in 1997. Finance minister Rachel Reeves is expected to raise taxes in a budget statement towards the end of 2025 in order to remain on track to meet her targets for fixing the public finances. ($1 = 0.7425 pounds)
