Bank tax could cover cost of welfare U-turn AND scrapping two-child benefit cap
A windfall tax on Britain's biggest banks could raise more than £11billion of much-needed money for the Treasury, analysis has revealed.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves is under pressure to raise taxes again in the autumn Budget to tackle a hole in the creaking public finances. With limited options, one suggestion is to increase levies on banks given they have benefited from high interest rates.
HSBC became the last of the so-called Big Four to reveal eye-watering half-year profits. It raked in nearly £12billion - or £431 a second - of profits worldwide despite falling by a quarter year-on-year.
The haul follows increased profits at Lloyds Banking Group, NatWest and Barclays. The quartet have collectively made £24billion in the space of just six months, and are on track to hit a record £48billion this year.
Former Tory Chancellor Jeremy Hunt cut a bank surcharge in his 2022 autumn Statement, from 8% to 3%. But think tank Positive Money is calling for a new surcharge of 38%, in line with Energy Profits Levy on oil and gas companies.
It claims doing so would be expected to bring in £11.3billion from the Big Four banks this year, based on their results for the first half of 2025. The move could cover the cost of the welfare U-turn and scrapping two-child benefit cap, the think tank claims. It argued that lenders' profits have been further boosted by the Bank of England paying higher interest rates on funds held at the central bank.
Positive Money is proposing the UK follows Spain with a levy targeting profits from banks' domestic retail banking arm above a threshold of £800million.
Simon Youel, Head of Policy and Advocacy at Positive Money, said: 'The public is paying the price of banks' record profits. Recouping the bill for banks' expensive free lunch should be a no-brainer, and can even be done in ways that protect the sector's international competitiveness. While banks should be profitable, there is no compelling reason to allow banks to extract such enormous rents from the rest of the economy. The money and payment services banks provide are an essential public utility, like energy. Just as energy companies shouldn't be able to profiteer, neither should banks - taxing windfalls makes sense for both.'
Bank bosses and other industry leaders have warned the Chancellor against hitting the sector, warning it could dent their ability to lend and dent the government's stated number one mission to grow the economy.
Georges Elhedery, HSBC chief executive, warned it risked its ability to 'support our customers and ultimately in delivering growth for the UK.'
Lloyds' chief executive Charlie Nunn highlighted the Chancellor's recent Mansion House speech where she told of 'the need for a stronger economy and needing a strong financial services sector'. Mr Nunn said: 'We therefore believe that's the important thing to focus on and obviously, therefore, wouldn't be consistent with tax rises.'
The Tories introduced a surcharge - or extra amount - of corporation tax banks paid from 2015. It was originally 8%, on top of the corporation tax at the time. But when the corporation tax rate rose, the surcharge fell to 5%. At the same time, the profit threshold on which banks had to start paying the surcharge jumped from £25million to £100million.
The Office for Budget Responsibility says the surcharge raised £1.5billion for the Treasury in 2023/24, and forecast it would bring in another £7billion over the rest of this parliament.
Positive Money is not calling for the 3% surcharge to be increased, but rather for a new levy of 38% on the profits of the banks' retail arms. t would be applied to their net interest income - the difference between what banks make from borrowers and pay depositors - above £800million.
Trade body UK Finance says the UK banking sector paid total tax of £44.8 billion for the financial year to the end of March last year, up from £41billion the previous year, and the highest since the study started a decade ago. The figure also represented 4.7% of total UK government tax receipts last year. Comparing the UK with abroad, it says London's total tax rate of 45.8% is way above New York's 27.9% and the 38.6% in Frankfurt.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Lenders deserve a pasting over the motor finance misselling scandal, says ALEX BRUMMER
The cloud of mistrust surrounding British finance will not be lifted by the Supreme Court ruling on motor finance. Modern history of the Square Mile is littered with examples of unwitting consumers being gulled into buying products they don't need and being cheated by finance providers. Pensions mis-selling and payment protection insurance come to mind. The Great Financial Crisis of 2008 may be a distant memory, but it was only two months ago that NatWest escaped from government ownership after an eye-popping £45.5billion taxpayer rescue. Indeed, the lingering costs of 2008 and the compensation culture it engendered are among the reasons why the UK's public finances are in the worst condition since the 1950s. Yet despite this, the Chancellor Rachel Reeves felt it was fine to go to the Mansion House and declare it time to place 'the boot on the neck' of the red tape of financial regulation. Quite the contrary. After scandals such as motor finance, the collapse of the Neil Woodford investment empire and the London Capital & Finance mini-bond scam, ever more vigilant enforcement is required if consumer confidence is to be nurtured. Tracing back victims of motor finance scandals to 2007 will be hard, and finding the data difficult. Yet it is unbecoming for Stephen Haddrill, who represents the Finance and Leasing Association, to shout foul and describe the proposal to pay out up to £18billion in compensation as 'completely impractical'. 'Caveat emptor' is fine as a mantra, but we shouldn't underestimate the deviousness of second-hand car merchants acting as agents for finance groups. I recall buying a second-hand VW and being told by the dealer that he didn't want cash because he would miss out on finance commissions. Investors in Lloyds Bank, Close Brothers et al yesterday enjoyed a relief rally at the expense of consumers treated unfairly. They should not escape retribution for unfitting behaviour. Private grief There is a prevalent view, fuelled by fee-hungry investment banks, that fending off private equity offers for FTSE-listed companies is impossible. Yet the bidding war which ended up with Primary Health Properties (PHP) fending off KKR and merging with rival Assura shows there are other choices. The outcome should be a plus for the NHS as it adopts Wes Streeting's desire to switch from big hospital provision of medical services to community-based health. PHP and Assura fended off private equity by fully engaging UK long-investors with 35 per cent of the votes, such as Schroders and Baillie Gifford. If the deal is approved next week, then it could free up to £300million for investment in updating and expanding facilities and building new health hubs. This is a more satisfactory outcome than some other recent private equity bids. Corporate ghouls Advent outbid rival KKR for Spectris, a vital British precision engineering firm which serves two critical industries: pharma and semiconductors. It is disappointing that no white knight offers emerged or that the Spectris board showed such little fight. Similarly, at a time when warehouses and data centres are all the rage, Warehouse REIT threw in its lot with Blackstone, reversing a decision to merge with Tritax Big Box. As customers of private equity-owned vet practices and dental surgeries would testify, unscrupulous owners rarely benefit the end-user. Lost love All hell has broken loose after Donald Trump fired the independent Bureau of Labour Statistics commissioner Erika McEntarfer because he didn't like 'rigged' jobs data which didn't suit his claims. The reality is that there is concern among some economists about the quality of data which showed that 258,000 fewer US jobs were created in May and June. Sound familiar? Here, the head of the Office for National Statistics Ian Diamond stepped down in May and UK Statistics Authority chair Robert Chote resigned in July. The departures came amid loud criticism from the Bank of England, among others, of poor labour force data. Lies, lies and damned statistics...
The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
Rachel Reeves under pressure to ‘urgently rule out' tax hikes
The Conservatives are urging Chancellor Rachel Reeves to "urgently rule out" increasing share taxes in the upcoming autumn budget, following the leak of a memo from Angela Rayner suggesting a series of tax hikes. The Tories argue that leaving investors"in limbo" could harm the economy. The party claims that scrapping the £500 dividend allowance would pull an estimated 5.22 million more individuals into paying investment levies. This pressure on ministers comes after a document, reportedly sent by the Deputy Prime Minister to Ms Reeves, was leaked to the press. In the memo, Ms Rayner proposed removing the dividend allowance to generate approximately £325 million annually, as well as axing inheritance tax relief for AIM shares and increasing dividend tax rates, according to The Telegraph. Shadow chancellor Mel Stride commented: 'The Government need to urgently rule out these tax hikes on savers and investors before speculation causes further economic harm. ' Labour don't understand how business works and how to create growth. More taxes on investment, entrepreneurship and saving are the last thing our economy needs right now.' The Government's U-turns over welfare reform and winter fuel payments have left the Chancellor with a multibillion-pound black hole to fill, fuelling speculation that she will seek to raise revenue through tax hikes. The Tories claimed axing the dividend allowance would drag 'an estimated 5.22 million more people into paying dividend tax'. This figure appears to be based on an assumption that at least 8.82 million people in the UK hold shares that pay dividends. Some 3.6 million are already subject to dividend tax, according to data obtained by investment platform AJ Bell through a Freedom of Information request. The Chancellor last year said she would not be 'coming back with more borrowing or more taxes' after her first budget but has since refused to rule out raising specific levies, saying it would be 'irresponsible' to do so. A Labour Party spokesperson said: 'The Conservatives have some brass neck. They've still not apologised for the damage caused by the Liz Truss mini-Budget, nor the £22 billion black hole they left – which hammered firms and families across the country. 'Labour is doing more to support business than the Tories ever could. 'We've already delivered three historic trade deals and four interest rate cuts – to reduce costs and put money back in people's pockets.'
Finextra
6 hours ago
- Finextra
Is the UK 'overestimating the risk and underestimating the opportunity' of stablecoins?
0 This content is contributed or sourced from third parties but has been subject to Finextra editorial review. I remember writing about the introduction of the Financial Services and Markets Bill in July 2022 and reflecting how the (then) Chancellor's Mansion House speech had claimed 'it reinforces the UK's position as a leading centre for technology as we safely adopt crypto assets' stressing a 'vision to make the UK one of the most dynamic financial centres in the world.' Fast forward three years, the Financial Services and Markets Act has been in force for two years and Rachel Reeves has just made another Mansion House Speech in which she emphasised growth, international competitiveness and asserted she 'will drive forward developments in blockchain technology… including tokenised securities and stablecoins…' Is this another example of the enthusiastic language that is as much a part of the UK Chancellor's annual speech as the ornate setting, or does it accurately signal the UK's global leadership in digital finance? What's been happening in the rest of the world while we talk about our vision? Stablecoin legislation was introduced in Japan in 2022, in Singapore and the EU in 2023, and Abu Dhabi in 2024. Most recently, the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act is set to pave the way for US banks to issue stablecoins and has led to real excitement about what it will mean for US growth, the FS industry and consumers. The Act includes a formal definition of a (fiat-pegged) 'payment stablecoin' and addresses much of the ambiguity and confusion that has characterised the years in which regulation in the US has been led by SEC enforcement. Albeit with varying degrees of success, these examples demonstrate that regulatory reform connected to digital finance can offer clarity and certainty that protects consumers and encourages innovation. In many ways, it is extraordinary to hear a Labour government adopting the myth of regulation as a barrier to innovation and growth, something I have long argued against. The government and regulators are faced with the challenge of balancing innovation and stability while safeguarding consumers and the wider financial system, but that is an argument for effective regulation, not for less regulation. Further clarity is required on stablecoin assets One issue banks are asking the FCA for clarity on currently, is at what point a stablecoin becomes 'systemic' as that is when oversight shifts to the Bank of England. UK Finance's response to the FCA's crypto prudential rules consultation emphasises the need for more detail on how the two regulatory regimes interact and sufficient time to implement the BoE's yet-to-be-published framework. There are also calls for guidance on anti-money laundering (AML) responsibilities, especially for custodians of stablecoin backing assets. Criticism that UK regulation 'overestimates the risk and underestimates the opportunity' of stablecoins may have something to do with the Chancellor's push for regulators to consider growth and competitiveness rather than 'excessive caution'. In her speech the Chancellor referenced the 'remit letters' she had written to the FCA and the PRA last year and extended the call: 'Regulators in other sectors must take up the call I make this evening… …not to bend to the temptation of excessive caution… …but to boldly regulate for growth… …in the service of prosperity for our whole country'. Regulation that balances risk and encourages innovation is possible but it must be agile and principles-based. We have excellent examples here of good, pro-innovation regulation, not least regulatory sandboxes and the CMA9 order, now replicated in jurisdictions around the world. The Electronic Trade Documents Act is another sensible initiative I was closely involved with, legislation that does not mention blockchain technology but made key changes to the definition and capabilities of trade documents (such as bills of lading) that were possessive in nature. The legal change is based on a UN template and allows the digitalisation of trade documents using what is described in the Statute as a 'reliable system'. Blockchain is one of the technologies that makes it possible to meet the criteria required to be a reliable system in that it can be distinguished from any copies, protected against unauthorised alteration, allowing no more than one person to exercise control of the document at any one time. Getting this into statute at the pace we did was a significant UK achievement. That was just the start. Much more action is required to encourage adoption and the attendant economic, environmental and social benefits to be realised. What does the Mansion House speech mean for the future of stablecoin in the UK? Back to the action set out in the Chancellor's speech and her specific references to fintech and blockchain initiatives: 'And for fintech – where almost half of Europe's Fintech's are already based here in the UK…the PRA and FCA are launching a scale-up unit to support innovative firms to grow in the UK, including in our world-leading payments system. The scale-up unit is a new initiative to help high-growth fintech firms transition from early-stage (often supported by regulatory sandboxes) to full-scale operations. This is especially important for payments firms, which face complex regulatory hurdles as they grow. The goal is clearly to retain and grow fintechs in the UK. I find myself echoing the questions I asked 'in these pages' last year in response to the government's National Payments Vision, regarding the implications for growth and whether the measures set out will create competition that drives both innovation and security and benefits for us all? The Chancellor also, of course, mentioned blockchain, tokenised securities and stablecoins, '…and an ambitious design for a new digital gilt instrument…so that UK financial services can be at the forefront of digital asset innovation.' Can we assume the Chancellor is backing blockchain as a foundational technology for the future of finance? Will we get the regulatory clarity around tokenised securities (traditional financial assets such as bonds or shares represented digitally on a blockchain) and stablecoins (digital currencies pegged to stable assets like the pound or dollar) that will boost confidence in the same way GENIUS has in the US? The reference to digital gilts also signals a move to innovate and modernise government debt issuance and settlement but again we are, so far, lacking in the detail. I welcome the rhetoric and appreciate the importance of messaging but wonder how far it has really shifted perception, are we still a place that 'overestimates risk and underestimates opportunity'? Is there the understanding that right sized regulation plots the path we must take, to end forever the false and tediously recurring dichotomy that you can have innovation or regulation, never both.
