Will the UK spending review lead to autumn tax rises? Have your say
Chancellor Rachel Reeves is due to deliver the outcome of the UK government's spending review on Wednesday, 11 May, setting out departmental budgets for the next few years.
The review will set out the day-to-day spending on public services, such as the NHS and schools, as well as planned areas of investment, including infrastructure and research.
Health and defence are expected to be among the "winners" from Wednesday's spending review. In addition, the government said on Sunday that Reeves would unveil an £86bn boost for funding research and development in her announcement on Wednesday.
Read more: Stocks to watch this week: TSMC, Adobe, Tesco, Bellway and Inditex
However, the government faces a tough fiscal situation and the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) warned last week that "sharp trade-offs are unavoidable".
"A more generous NHS settlement, or going further and faster on defence spending, would make cuts to other public services even more likely," the think-tank said.
"Within the category of 'unprotected' departments, larger increases for some areas – prisons, say, which face well-publicised challenges – would mean less (i.e. bigger cuts) for others."
In a note on Friday, Ruth Gregory, deputy chief UK economist at Capital Economics, said that the spending review would "shine a light on the tight fiscal position. And Reeves' problems are far from over. U-turns on benefit spending and higher borrowing costs may mean to maintain the current buffer against her fiscal rules Reeves has to raise £18-46bn in the autumn budget."
Gregory said in a separate note that those U-turns on benefit and welfare spending, along with increased pressure to ramp up defence spending and higher borrowing costs, had left Reeves in a "sticky position".
"If she wishes to avoid a political backlash and/or an adverse reaction in the financial markets, she probably has little choice but to raise taxes in the autumn budget," Gregory said.
In addition, Sarah Coles, head of personal finance at Hargreaves Lansdown, said: "If a potential funding gap emerges [from the spending review], there's going to be speculation that taxes could be hiked to close it.
"The government very broadly has two options when it comes to fund raising from taxes. It could make a whole host of smaller tax tweaks – all of which could cause their own problems, or it could tackle a major tax, which would be politically risky."
Do you think the spending review could open the door to tax rises being announced in the autumn budget? Vote in the poll below.
Yahoo UK's poll of the week lets you vote and indicate your strength of feeling on one of the week's hot topics. After the poll closes, we'll publish and analyse the results each Friday, giving readers the chance to see how polarising a topic has become and if their view chimes with other Yahoo UK readers.
Read more:
How school fees can affect your mortgage borrowing
The cost of caring for a loved one
What is the Pension Investment Review?
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
How Labour's winter fuel fiasco paves the way for means-testing the state pension
As Rachel Reeves announced an about-turn on her winter fuel policy this week, she opened a whole new can of worms for pensioners. The Chancellor's decision to return the payments to those with an income of under £35,000 has created a complicated means-test and reignited calls from some commentators to claw back other benefits, such as the state pension, from those deemed 'wealthy'. Means-testing the state pension system would be a radical move that no British chancellor has dared attempt before. But Labour is desperate for cash and has shown it is not afraid to anger older voters. Could Ms Reeves possibly get away with it? Introduced in 1909 and originally worth five shillings a week, the state pension is a cornerstone of the welfare state. Today, workers pay National Insurance contributions for 35 years to receive its full benefit. The full new state pension is £230.25 a week, while the old 'basic' pension – for those who reached state pension age before April 2016 – is £176.45 a week. However, the benefit has become increasingly unaffordable to administer. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) predicts the country's spending on pensioners will reach £180bn by 2029. The idea of reserving the payment for those who need it most has therefore become increasingly attractive. Both Labour and the Tories pledged to keep the 'triple lock' that means pensions are increased each April by the highest of wage growth, inflation or 2.5pc. Means-testing could be one way to dramatically cut costs, without breaking that pledge. In January, Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, caused uproar when she said her party would 'look at means-testing' the state pension. Key Labour advisers, think tanks and academics have also voiced support for the plan. Means-testing would completely upend the system. But this week's winter fuel policy reversal could make it slightly easier. Under the latest changes, all pensioners will receive the winter fuel payment, worth up to £300 a year. However, those who earn more than £35,000 will be expected to return it to HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC). To administer the new system, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) will tell HMRC who they've paid the winter fuel payment to. HMRC will then apply the income test to determine who will need to repay the money. Government departments have long shared data about taxpayers, including doing so specifically to pay or not pay a pensioner benefit, such as free TV licences. But is this Whitehall bureaucracy really a slow slide towards a means-tested state pension? Telegraph Money reader Jim Humphrey fears so. The 69-year-old, a part-time financial adviser from St Albans, is one of the estimated two million pensioners who will still not receive the winter fuel payment. This is because his income exceeds the £35,000 threshold. He is worried Labour is on a 'slippery slope' to means-testing the state pension. He said: 'I don't need the money, but it is a question of principle... I have paid tax for many, many years.' Other state benefits have been means-tested in recent years. Free TV licences for all over-75s were scrapped in August 2020 and restricted to those who qualify for pension credit. Last year's restriction of the winter fuel payment to those on pension credit was also a form of means-testing – as is the payment of pension credit to those on the lowest incomes. Campaigners and economists have also pushed for free prescriptions for the over-60s to be similarly restricted. Last October, Dr Kristian Niemietz, of the Institute for Economic Affairs think tank, said: 'Means-testing old-age benefits is a way to make fiscal savings while insulating the poorest from cuts.' Labour is also gearing up to ban over-60s from taking student loans from 2027, as it introduces a 'Lifetime Learning Entitlement'. Ben Ramanauskas, of think tank Policy Exchange, said: 'The Government's approach to cutting spending through means-testing is the right one. 'However, this alone will not significantly lower the cost of the UK's unsustainable welfare bill, improve public finances, or give younger taxpayers a fair deal.' Other countries already operate means-testing on their state pension payouts. In Canada, which operates a flat-rate benefit system, a maximum of $1,433 (£773.30) is paid each month, and is topped up for those on low incomes. In Chile, a pension is paid to those over 65, unless your family's wealth is deemed to be in the top 10pc of the population. Those with an income of less than $1,210,828 (£955.30) a month are eligible, whether they are still working or not. In Australia, the state pension – or 'age pension' – has no reference to how long a person has worked. Instead, it is granted as an age-based means-tested benefit. About a third of pensioners have their pension cut because they have other sources of income. Moving to an Australian-style system would be highly controversial, angering those who say if you have 'paid in' you should get the full amount irrespective of your income. Mike Ambery, of pension provider Standard Life, said: 'There would need to be a change in applying for state pension as well as the detail to replicate means-testing in other countries. The practicality and change to a universal system now would be operationally significant.' There would be other barriers to overcome. The Government could only make significant savings if people are able to generate big enough private pension savings. But despite the 'automatic enrolment' reforms that made workplace pensions compulsory, millions of people are on course for meagre retirement incomes. Research by the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association (PLSA) found that the cost of all but the most basic retirement has increased over the past year. Two retirees running one small car, eating out weekly and taking a four-star foreign holiday each year would now need an income of almost £35,000 each before tax to retire comfortably, rising to £52,000 if they live alone. Meanwhile, anyone living alone on the state pension would even fall short of a basic retirement, which now requires an income of £13,400 a year, the PLSA said. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Britain's biggest pub company to slash jobs amid debt crunch
Britain's biggest pub company is set to cut a raft of jobs as bosses seek to slim down the debt-laden firm following Rachel Reeves's tax raid. Stonegate Group, which runs more than 4,000 pubs across the UK including the Slug & Lettuce and Craft Union brands, has been working with restructuring specialists at AlixPartners over recent months, The Telegraph has learnt. Up to 150 jobs are expected to be cut across the company's head office and central functions. It is understood no decision has yet been made on the exact number of roles under threat. Jobs in its pubs and bars will not be affected and no pubs will close as a result of the restructuring. It comes after a difficult period for Stonegate, which is owned by TDR Capital, the private equity house which also controls Asda. It has lost hundreds of millions of pounds while straining under the weight of a near-£3bn debt pile while higher taxes levied on employers by the Chancellor this year have added to pressures. Despite a rise in revenues in recent years, it reported pre-tax losses of £257m and £214m in 2023 and 2024 respectively as interest payments on its debts pushed it into the red. A Stonegate spokesman said the planned cuts were partly due to a shift away from managed pubs – which it owns and operates itself – towards leased and tenanted pubs, which are rented out to and operated by publicans. The latter have proved more profitable for Stonegate in recent years. Managed pubs also require more resources and head office staff to oversee, making them less appealing to run at a time when the company is trying to return to profit. The spokesman said: 'This, combined with rising costs, particularly after the recent Budget, means we must reorganise our support functions to reflect the shape of our business today. 'We recognise that this is a difficult time and we are committed to supporting our colleagues with care and fairness as we consult with the business on the proposed changes.' Hospitality firms have been lumbered with extra costs after Ms Reeves raised employers' National Insurance contributions and lowered the threshold at which they are paid this year. Bosses have argued the latter has disproportionately hurt hospitality firms because of the number of lower-paid and part-time workers they employ. It will be the second round of job cuts at Stonegate in two years following more than 250 redundancies in 2023. Stonegate has also been reviewing rents and agreements with suppliers as part of restructuring efforts. Last summer, TDR pumped £250m into the company to avoid defaulting on its debts, after the cost of servicing its borrowings rose from £301m to £450m in 2024. This included refinancing. The refinancing gave Stonegate breathing room, allowing it to push the repayment date for much of its debts to 2029. At the time, Stonegate said the deal would allow it to invest more in its pubs. The agreement saw one of its lenders, AlbaCore Capital Group, take a stake in the firm. Domiciled in the Cayman Islands, Stonegate traces its history back to 2010, when TDR bought 333 pubs from Toby Carvery owner Mitchells & Butlers. Its debts ballooned when it bought rival pub firm Ei Group – formerly Enterprise Inns – in a £3bn deal in 2019. The deal completed just before the pandemic forced the nation's pubs shut for months on end. After the pandemic, soaring interest rates heaped pressure on firms with large debts. Stonegate's troubles echo those of TDR-owned Asda, which too has been battling to bring down costs in the wake of its debt-fuelled buyout by the firm and the billionaire Issa brothers in 2021. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Crisis - which crisis? Israel-Iran another huge challenge for government
On a normal weekend, MPs might try to snatch a bit of downtime, or squeeze in a game of pin the tail on the donkey at a constituency summer fete. Ministers might be ploughing through documents in their red box, or rehearsing the next round of "lines to take" - the rough scripts circulated around Whitehall so they all say more or less the same thing whenever they are near a microphone. Yes, it's as deliberate as it is maddening. Instead, this weekend, as buildings burn in Tehran and Tel Aviv, the government is staring at a crisis. Another one. A moment that has big implications for the world's security and stability, as well as how we pay our way. Only 48 hours after the chancellor - who'll join us tomorrow - carefully carved out how she wants to spend taxpayers' cash for the next few years, Israel struck Iran, Iran hit back, the oil price surged, and the government's emergency committee was scrambled. No government can stop the rest of the world "going crazy", as one City source described it. But now, they added, "We have multiple genuine global crises", when even "one shock is enough to shift the goalposts". "There do genuinely seem to be more crises," a senior Labour MP tells me. Governments always have to deal with the universe as they find it, not the world as they wish it to be. But what confronts Labour might have most of us hiding under the duvet, and the sheer number of dangers seems to be multiplying. A senior Whitehall figure suggested there were moments in the Cold War that were "more perilous", but the problems then were "more simple – it's so complicated now". Abroad, conflicts rage – most notably, the years' long face-off between Israel and Iran that has exploded into a deadly and direct phase this week, and a belligerent Russia fighting war on the edge of our continent. India and Pakistan have been squaring up to each other too, and China is jostling for dominance. The government has already promised it will spend more - a lot more - on protecting the country in the face of all those threats. Remember, they have not told us where the cash is going to come for that in the long term. But don't forget our supposedly most trusted ally in the White House is flirting with a different kind of war, a trade war, by slapping on, then taking off, then slapping on costly tariffs on exports. At home, ministers will also still gladly describe many aspects of the UK as dire, and remind you the state of government was even worse than they expected when they walked into government nearly a year ago. They talk about a prisons "crisis", a housing "crisis", the "broken" NHS, as well as the climate "crisis". The list goes on. This week's Spending Review was designed to be their big answer to those problems. Tens upon tens of billions of pounds of taxes and borrowing for public services and long-term projects, like rail lines and power stations. The chancellor's allies reckon the big review went down pretty well. It has not, as of yet, created any new political problems at least. "The biggest fear on a day like that is that it all unravels and that hasn't happened," a government source said, sighing that No 11 has avoided an ominshambles, an embarrassing row over taxing sausage rolls or a serious breach in their friendship with business. Despite enormous amounts of spending, money will still be painfully tight in some parts of government. But insiders reckon Reeves' plans have given Labour backbench MPs things to boast about – note the number of specific towns given a long-term project and a name check in the chancellor's speech. But there are other tricky trends the government is less fond of pointing out, that others call "crises" - notably the country's debt, and our shifting demographics. In short – the debts are massive, there are more older people to look after, and fewer proportionately of working age to pay to support them - profound long-term problems that will pile more pressure on the bill for the nation's health and welfare bills. And few mainstream politicians would currently suggest allowing more workers from overseas to come to the UK to change that equation. "No politician will tell it as it is," a former minister worries privately, arguing that none of our leading politicians are being open about the coming strain on our existing economic model. "We're not yet in a doom loop – but we need to wake up." Keir Starmer would likely object to the comparison, but another senior figure suggested, just as former Conservative PM Boris Johnson believed in having his cake and eating it, that Labour is trying to have it all. They said, the government "isn't addressing the fundamentals – we can't deal with debt, defence, and growth while having over half the state going towards the NHS and welfare, it doesn't add up". The ledger will certainly be even harder to balance if the outburst of violence between Iran and Israel becomes a lasting conflict. Not because of decades of regional agony, but the brute effect on the oil price which could ultimately feed through to higher prices for everyone and more strain on the economy. Rachel Reeves is already short on cash for a rainy day. If the conflict's prolonged, those potential tax rises in the autumn might well arrive. But rather than panic publicly, government sources point to the rising price of oil as another reminder that they are making the right decisions at home - like planning new power stations. "We need resilience to navigate short term crises," they said. "That's what we are building". The source also recalled the "Oh my God moment" when Trump introduced the world to his surreal tariff scoreboard, saying the UK had put itself in a far better position to navigate turmoil than its predecessors. A former senior minister also credited the PM's political positioning towards the White House. It had involved what they described as a "sickening amount" of sucking up, but meant that "in practical terms, they are probably as in as good a position as anybody". The prime minister's allies also point, with some legitimacy, to Sir Keir's intense efforts to make like a statesman, trying to coordinate action on Ukraine, and patching up some of the UK's fraught relationships with European allies. But there is no doubting this is a fretful moment, adversaries and conflicts around the world, deep seated problems at home. Labour has zealously talked up its appetite to reform everything in sight, to respond to the gravity of the situation it inherited. The prime minister is certainly visibly busy on the world stage, again at the G7 this weekend. Labour is pumping significant amounts of extra cash into public services. But it's fair to wonder if their actions so far really match the scale of the promises they made to "rewire" the country, and the ever more fraught situation they face on so many different fronts. When you hear politicians talk of a time of crisis, you might well ask, which one? Labour tiptoed cautiously through its first year - will it now decide to escape its own shadow? Spending Review: Massive cheques from the chancellor for some - but what do totals hide? Why Labour is strengthening ties with China after years of rollercoaster relations BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below. Sign up for the Off Air with Laura K newsletter to get Laura Kuenssberg's expert insight and insider stories every week, emailed directly to you.
