Wealth tax will not work, says Scottish Secretary
Speaking to comedian Matt Forde, the Labour minister said he 'wished' it worked but suggested wealthy people would leave the country.
Some within Labour, including former leader Lord Neil Kinnock, Welsh First Minister Baroness Eluned Morgan and former equality minister Anneliese Dodds, have backed the idea.
It has also become popular among unions and other left-wing parties, including the Greens and Jeremy Corbyn's new, unnamed party.
On Thursday, Mr Murray said there was 'no silver bullet' to the economic issues facing the country, saying 'if you pull one leaver you have to push another' in a reference to tax rises and public spending cuts.
He said while some UK Government decisions have been 'unpalatable', 'things would have been even more unpalatable' if they did not make tough choices.
Asked if a wealth tax could be a solution to the issue, the Scottish Secretary said: 'No, it doesn't work. The Laffer curve (a theory showing the relationship between taxation and a government's revenue) is there for everyone to see.
'So, yes, you can bring in a wealth tax, because it might make you feel principally better.
'You might bring in £200 million but the cost of doing that would be huge because there is just flight, whether we like that or not.'
Mr Murray said the tax had failed in other countries which, he said, had since gone on to roll back their decisions.
He said: 'Every single principal decision we have to make has got to be on the basis of does it raise more money?
'Is it fair? Is it equitable? And will it resolve the situation?
'If the answer to any of those questions is no, we should not do it.
'So the wealth tax, and honestly, the wealth tax has been spent about 500 times over already for every single issue – just doing well tax, it doesn't work.
'I wish it did, but it doesn't.'
Mr Murray added that the 'only real palatable option' was to grow the economy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
STV News
5 minutes ago
- STV News
I considered quitting politics after first term, says Nicola Sturgeon
Nicola Sturgeon considered leaving politics after just one term at Holyrood, she has said. The former first minister was first elected as a regional MSP for Glasgow in the first term of the Scottish Parliament in 1999. But speaking at an event in her Glasgow Southside constituency as she launched her memoir, Frankly, Ms Sturgeon said she felt she had 'failed' because she was unable to win her constituency. By that point, she said, the future first minister had lost three constituency races – in 1992 and 1997 for Westminster and the Holyrood seat she contested in 1999. 'I wasn't particularly happy in myself in the first term of Parliament,' she said at the event as part of the Govanhill Book Festival. 'This dream I'd had about being a politician was going to be realised and yet I felt I'd failed because I hadn't won the constituency.' She added: 'I was really conflicted for the first few years and, of course, there was lots of teething problems with the Parliament as a whole, so it wasn't the happiest time in my political career. 'I guess I got to the end of that first session of the Scottish Parliament, not really sure whether I wanted to spend that much more time in politics. 'That obviously changed and the rest is history, but that was a moment where I could easily, I think, have taken a step out and done something different.' Sturgeon would go on to win the seat, which was originally named Glasgow Govan, in 2007 before announcing her plans to step down as an MSP at next year's election. Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
Telegraph
6 minutes ago
- Telegraph
How we could pay for Reeves's race for growth
Labour made no secret of wooing businesses ahead of the general election last year, promising to cut red tape to boost Britain's economic growth. However, the Government's deregulation drive since coming into power has rung alarm bells with consumer groups. James Daley, of consumer group Fairer Finance, said: 'We've been increasingly concerned by the Government's deregulation agenda over the past few months. 'While we all want to see a return to sustainable economic growth, it's a mistake to think that the key to this is removing consumer protections that have been thoughtfully built up over the course of several decades.' This year, Rachel Reeves has been accused multiple times of putting the needs of the financial services industry before consumers. The Chancellor attempted to intervene in the Supreme Court case on the car finance scandal in January, fearing a negative judgment for banks could reflect badly on Britain as a place to do business. She was reportedly considering overruling the Supreme Court if it decided to hit lenders with a £44bn compensation bill. In the end this was not needed because the Supreme Court largely sided with banks. The Treasury said that it intervened over concerns that a judgment in favour of consumers could reduce the availability of car finance for those who need it. But Liberal Democrats MP Bobby Dean told The Guardian the attempt to intervene was 'disgraceful' and sent a 'bad message' to consumers. Prioritising the City Now, Ms Reeves is understood to be pushing for Revolut to become a fully authorised bank as quickly as possible, despite lingering concerns about the app bank's reputation on fraud prevention. It was named in more fraud reports than any other major bank in 2023-24, according to data from Action Fraud, and The Telegraph revealed last year that Refund had pushed back against refunds for some scam victims despite recommendations by the Financial Ombudsman Service (Fos). Revolut said it was continually enhancing its security and prevented over £600m in potential fraud against customers in 2024. Revolut was granted a provisional licence last year after a three-year wait but has yet to become a fully-fledged bank. The Chancellor is desperate for a potential $65bn (£56bn) flotation to happen in London instead of New York. She had tried to secure a meeting with regulators and Revolut but this was blocked by Bank of England governor Andrew Bailey amid concerns about political interference. Retirements at risk The Treasury has also been accused of putting retirements at risk in order to accelerate economic growth. Under the Mansion House Accord, pension providers agree to invest at least 10pc of so-called 'default' funds in private markets by 2030. The Government estimates this will unlock up to £50bn for the UK economy. But Tom Selby, of stockbroker AJ Bell, said there was a risk this could leave savers worse off in retirement. 'The Government has chosen to conflate its understandable, but increasingly desperate, desire to deliver economic growth with other people's pensions by pushing workplace schemes to increase their allocations to higher risk, often higher cost, illiquid assets such as private equity. 'While it has stopped short of mandating investments in these assets, it has created a power to do this if it doesn't get what it wants, essentially putting a gun to the head of pension schemes to do this voluntarily. 'There is, of course, a world where this approach works and delivers better returns for members and more investment for key UK infrastructure for the Government. But it is also entirely possible that shoe-horning money into illiquid UK investments will deliver lower returns for savers, which would ultimately mean millions of people get less from their pension in retirement.' 'Firms over fairness' At her Mansion House speech in July, Ms Reeves said that rules and red tape were a 'boot on the neck' of British businesses. But aspects of her financial services strategy – dubbed the Leeds Reforms – have been lambasted by consumer groups. Mr Daley said: 'It's particularly alarming to hear talk of plans to scrap the protections that were put in place only a few years ago after the financial crisis.' Ms Reeves has proposed weakening so-called 'ring-fencing' which separates retail banking services from investment banking activities. This regime was introduced in 2019 as a result of the 2008 financial crisis to shield customers' deposits from financial risks emerging elsewhere in banking groups. The Leeds Reforms also include a crackdown on the Fos, the body responsible for settling disputes between businesses and consumers. Ms Reeves wants the Ombudsman to refer to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) on ambiguous complaints and give the regulator the power to intervene in mass redress events. The Chancellor said this is to ensure the Fos 'no longer acts as a quasi-regulator'. But consumer advocacy group, the Transparency Taskforce, has warned that increased cooperation between the Fos and FCA could lead to unfair decisions for customers in cases where businesses have technically followed FCA rules but still acted unfairly. In a letter to the Treasury Select Committee, the group wrote: 'This represents a fundamental shift from principles-based regulation to a rigid, legalistic approach that prioritises certainty for firms over fairness for consumers.' Diluting the Consumer Credit Act Separately, the consumer association Which? has raised concerns about the Government's plans to reform the Consumer Credit Act. The Act, which sets out customers' protections in credit agreements, played a key role in the car finance scandal. Despite siding with lenders, the Supreme Court found that consumers could still bring claims under the Act where lenders paid 'excessive' commissions to dealers. But the Treasury is reviewing the Act in order to better align it with the FCA's rules. There are some concerns this could lead to the weakening of protections in the CCA. Rocio Concha, of Which?, said the Government should 'tread carefully with its plans to reform this important piece of legislation'. She added: 'Far from being a blocker to growth, consumer protections are essential for a healthy, functioning economy.' A Revolut spokesman said: 'We are progressing through the final stages of mobilisation and continue to work constructively with the Prudential Regulation Authority. Given Revolut's global scale, this is the largest and most complex mobilisation ever undertaken in the UK. A thorough review is an expected part of the process and getting this right is more important than rushing to meet a specific date. We are looking forward to launching a fully regulated UK bank for our millions of UK customers this year.' A Treasury spokesman said: 'We are balancing growing the economy – our number one mission – with strong consumer protections to deliver for working people. The Leeds Reforms will help more people get on the housing ladder, drive better returns for savers and ensure the Fos provides a cost-free route for consumers to resolve disputes without acting as a quasi-regulator.'
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Labour's showboating grandees will wreck the economy
Lord Kinnock has argued for a tax on private medical insurance, apparently to 'save' the health service. Gordon Brown has been calling for higher gambling taxes, supposedly to 'fix' child poverty. At the rate this is going, by the end of the summer Sir Tony Blair will be calling for a wealth tax, and Lord Mandelson will be starting a campaign for an exit tax on the entrepreneurs fleeing the country. Labour's grandees are generating lots of coverage for themselves by constantly calling for a levy on something or other. But hold on. This is crazy. Sure, we know the Labour grassroots love it. The trouble is, it encourages the belief that all of Britain's challenges can be fixed by yet more taxes – when in reality we need a smaller, cheaper, and less intrusive state instead. Almost every day seems to bring a fresh call from one of the major figures within the Labour movement for a new way of hustling some cash from the rest of us. Lord Kinnock, who in many ways still speaks for the soul of his party, has already called for a wealth tax, set a 2pc a year on the total assets of anyone with more than £10m. Not content with the way that may already be encouraging the wealthy to decamp to Italy or Dubai, this week he argued that private medical insurance should be subject to VAT. Apparently adding 20pc on top of every policy would raise the few extra billion needed to finally turn the NHS into a world-class service. Gordon Brown, who during his long reign as chancellor turned the stealth tax into something approaching an art form, is now campaigning for extra taxes on the betting industry. Levies on online casinos and slot machines could be pushed up to 50pc, apparently, which would raise £3.2bn a year, enough to lift restrictions on benefits. To listen to the party's grandees, the solution to every problem we face is very straightforward. We just need higher taxes on something or other. As the Budget approaches, and the 'black hole' in the public finances grows larger and larger, we will no doubt hear calls for windfall taxes on the banks, levies on crypto trading, charges for the streaming giants, VAT on funerals, or any other fiddly tax that might bring in some extra money. In a clickbait era, there is no question that it generates plenty of social media likes for Kinnock and Brown. And yet, the campaigns are not just completely pointless. They are also deeply damaging for the British economy. The proposals themselves hardly stand up to serious scrutiny. Surely we should be offering tax relief on private medical insurance, as many other more sensibly run European countries do, on the grounds that those people won't be making any calls on an already over-stretched public health service? VAT would simply increase demand for the state service, as Labour has surely already discovered with its disastrous imposition of the extra tax on school fees. Likewise, taxing online gambling would simply encourage people to move to offshore platforms instead, using VPNs if necessary. It wouldn't raise anything like the amount that is forecast, and it would damage what, whether you approve of it or not, happens to be a major British industry. Even worse, as both men should know, and Brown in particular given his long experience as chancellor, any money they raise would simply be absorbed by a state machine that now has an insatiable appetite for more cash. Just as VAT on private school fees has not done anything to help the state sector, so a levy on private healthcare wouldn't 'rescue' the NHS, nor would a gambling levy 'fix' child poverty. A billion or two here or there no longer makes any difference to a government that now spends £1.2 trillion a year and still can't make ends meet. But there is a bigger issue than just the campaigns themselves, even if the arguments fall apart on more than a moment of close examination. It is this. It encourages the view that every problem in the UK can be solved with yet another tax. When the current Chancellor Rachel Reeves took office, after learning her politics from the likes of Kinnock and Brown, she naively believed that the only real problem the UK faced was that the government did not spend enough money. If the 'grown-ups' were given the chance to end 'austerity', along with a few promises about 'stability', everything would gradually start to get better. It has turned out to be a catastrophic misjudgment, leaving the UK with a zero-growth economy that is now stuck in a doom loop of endlessly rising taxes that crush growth. What the Labour Party really needs right now is some grandees who will tell it some hard truths. Kinnock would be the right man to tell his comrades that you can't simply spend your way to prosperity. Brown would be the perfect person to remind his followers that while a Labour chancellor will always want to increase spending, he or she should also make sure that entrepreneurs and businesses are allowed to flourish. Otherwise very quickly there won't be any wealth left to redistribute. In fairness, he was always mindful of that truth when he was in Number 11, even if he appears to have forgotten it since he left office. Instead, the grandees are show-boating, winning easy applause from the Labour tribe, while ignoring the real challenges the country faces. It is surely clear to everyone by now that we need fewer taxes not more, and they should be lower as well – and the grandees should start to spell that out before it is too late.
