Voices: There won't be a wealth tax – but Rachel Reeves can't afford to rule it out just yet

Yahoo

3 days ago

Normally, when politicians decline to rule something out, a sceptical media and public believe they are about to do it. But there should be one exception to this rule.
Keir Starmer, Rachel Reeves and other ministers are refusing to rule out introducing a wealth tax in this autumn's Budget, when the chancellor is likely to raise taxes by at least £20bn to stick within her fiscal rules.
I'm told Starmer and Reeves will not bring in a new wealth tax, such as the 2 per cent levy on assets of more than £10m advocated by a growing number of Labour MPs and Neil Kinnock, the party's former leader, to raise £10bn.
A wealth tax is an easy slogan and fits on to a banner. It would do nicely for the Starmer allies hoping to nudge him in a more progressive direction as he seeks a long overdue 'story' for his government. But Reeves and Starmer are not convinced. The chancellor thinks wealth taxes don't work. Twelve developed nations had them in 1990s but only three remain; only one, in Switzerland, brings in lots of money.
Reeves burnt her own fingers by targeting non-doms – a process begun by Jeremy Hunt, the outgoing Tory chancellor. I'm told Reeves privately dismissed fears the rich would respond by leaving the UK, saying: "They always say that, but it never happens."
It is happening, and she is now considering changing her plan to make worldwide assets, including those in foreign trusts, liable to inheritance tax. One government insider told me: 'People can choose where to pay their taxes. It's very easy to move countries and they are doing it.'
A new wealth tax would be complex, take years to introduce and probably not be worth the candle. Dan Neidle, founder of Tax Policy Associates, said its study found such a tax would 'lower long-run growth and employment, thanks to a decline in foreign and domestic investment. It would make UK businesses more fragile and less competitive, and create strong incentives for capital reallocation and migration.'
Why not just say no to a wealth tax now? Reeves offered one explanation to her Tory predecessor Norman Lamont at a Lords committee hearing this week. He told her he found it 'a bit strange' the government has not ruled out the move. Reeves replied that if she ruled out one tax rise, the media would move on to the next option, and assume that one was going to happen if she failed to rule it out. A fair point – but not her only reason.
Reeves and Starmer need to build bridges with the parliamentary Labour Party after it filleted their welfare legislation, so rejecting a wealth tax now would inflame tensions. I suspect that when the Budget comes, Reeves and her allies will whisper to Labour MPs they are introducing a form of wealth tax through other measures, while avoiding headlines about implementing a specific one.
Another reason not to rule out a wealth tax is to help message discipline. Labour certainly needs more of that: ministers unwittingly fuelled speculation about tax rises in media interviews by giving different definitions of "working people'. Far easier to say taxes are a matter for the Budget and we don't comment in advance.
Some senior Labour figures think Reeves's reticence is because she is considering proposals that are close to being a wealth tax – for example, increasing property-based taxes. I think she should bring in higher council tax bands for the most expensive properties. It's ludicrous that this tax is based on 1991 property values, and that in England, people in homes valued at more than £320,000 pay the same amount in their local authority. Reform could be sold as a genuine levelling up measure the Tories flunked as it would cut bills in the north and Midlands while raising them in the south.
Alternatively, Reeves could increase capital gains tax for the second Budget running, perhaps by bringing it into line with income tax rates, which are higher. Some in government favour a rise in income tax with the money earmarked for defence, as I have suggested.
Another option is to raise the top rate of income tax from 45 per cent to 50 per cent. But both ideas would leave Labour open to the charge of breaching its manifesto pledge not to increase income tax, national insurance or VAT. Reeves could argue that circumstances had changed in a more dangerous world. But breaking its promise might be a step too far for an already deeply unpopular PM and party.
I don't think there will be a wealth tax. However, the rich shouldn't celebrate. The Budget will increase existing taxes on the wealthy, in line with the government's mantra of protecting "working people", while ensuring 'those with the broadest shoulders carry the greatest burden'.
Health warning: creating losers is not pain-free for them or the government, as Reeves discovered when she brought in the 'family farms tax'. But reforming some taxes under a better banner – 'fair tax' – is her best shot.