logo
Five ways Rachel Reeves could launch a tax attack on pensioners

Five ways Rachel Reeves could launch a tax attack on pensioners

Telegraph28-03-2025

Rob White is a Money writer covering pensions, tax and savings. This week he revealed 700,000 more retirees could be forced to pay income tax from next year. Find advice, analysis and the latest pension news here
By the time Rachel Reeves finished her Spring Statement, the ominous sound of a till drawer opening was ringing around Westminster. Just 21 weeks after her £40bn tax-grabbing maiden Budget, the Chancellor laid the groundwork for something even more brutal next time.
During Labour's tenure, few have been safe from the Treasury's claws. Farmers, businesses and families have particularly felt the pinch. After keeping to its 'no tax rises for working people' promise in name only, the Government has also raised capital gains tax, moved pensions into inheritance tax and maintained a deep freeze on income tax thresholds.
Yet there is one group that could be even more vulnerable when Ms Reeves picks up the red briefcase next autumn – pensioners.
In the wake of her Spring Statement this week, the Institute for Fiscal Studies warned that pensioners and the wealthy risked becoming the prime targets of another tax raid in the autumn because the Chancellor had left herself dangerously exposed to minor forecast changes. Here, Telegraph Money details how Ms Reeves could launch a new tax attack on pensioners.
1. National Insurance cash grab
Currently, people stop paying National Insurance contributions when they reach state pension age, even if they're still working.
However, employers still have to make contributions on their behalf – and Ms Reeves increased the rate to 15pc in her autumn Budget.
According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), one in 10 people over state pension age are still in work and as the only group permanently immune from National Insurance contributions, they could be next in the Chancellor's crosshairs.
James Jones-Tinsley, of professional services consultancy Barnett Waddingham, said: 'Deciding which, if any, pensioners should pay National Insurance will be a contentious issue, as well as highly unpopular.
'But a new government in the early stage of its tenure is best placed to make unpopular decisions – think of the winter fuel allowance.'
One way to mitigate the impact of such a change would be using salary sacrifice, which our guide explains in-depth.
2. Hitting grieving families with capital gains tax
The unpopular capital gains tax is charged on the increase in an asset's value when it's sold. Primary homes are exempt, but it's levied on anything from stocks and shares to second homes and jewellery. In the Budget, Ms Reeves raised the higher and lower rates to 18pc and 24pc respectively.
When someone dies however, the increase in value between when they bought an asset and when it's passed on to their beneficiaries is not subject to the charge. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has called for this 'forgiveness' to be removed and it is something the Chancellor could consider.
Charlene Young, of investment platform AJ Bell, said: 'This [rule] prevents double taxation in the form of both capital gains tax and inheritance tax when someone dies, but it does encourage people to sit on gains during their lifetime and avoid making lifetime gifts of assets.
'Capital gains tax being wiped out on death also creates an incentive in some cases to hold on to assets so they are taxed as part of the estate under inheritance, potentially paying less or no tax.
'But if the Government scrapped this tax break, there would likely need to be some allowance made to account for inflation. Otherwise, people who have owned investments for a very long time would be severely punished.'
There are ways to invest and avoid being stung by capital gains tax.
3. A savings hit-and-run
Cash Isas are currently free of income tax and capital gains tax, providing a safe haven for savers to put up to £20,000 a year and watch it grow.
Some argue that they provide no benefit to the state and should be scrapped, but they are popular amongst retirees. More than six million over-65s have one, according to investment platform AJ Bell.
The Chancellor avoided any changes to them in her Spring Statement, but official documents published afterwards revealed that the Government is considering a move. This could include lowering the amount that people can contribute each year in a bid to encourage them to invest in stocks and shares Isas, which would provide a handy boost for a government intent on pursuing growth.
Rob Morgan, of Charles Stanley, added: 'Documents accompanying the Spring Statement confirmed the Chancellor is considering making changes to Isas to encourage more people to invest rather than save. This is well intentioned in terms of directing more interest and injecting more capital into the UK stock market, which is badly needed.
'However, it's also important those with shorter-term objectives or who cannot tolerate any risk are not penalised, especially if they lack financial resilience. Tightening cash Isa rules could inhibit people's ability to build a tax-free rainy-day pot and would particularly affect pensioners who have no capacity to take risk, for instance because they need money for healthcare.'
Andrew Tully, of Nucleus Financial, added: 'If the Government reduced the cash Isa limit as has been rumoured to £4,000, for example, then it hopes that will mean people will invest more in stocks & shares Isas.
'While some will, others will want to continue using a cash-based product such as a bank savings account or a fixed-rate bond. In both cases interest on these will be taxable, unlike a cash Isa which is entirely tax-free.'
Read our guide on the small Isa change that could net you six figures.
4. The state pension 'retirement tax'
Labour's decision to keep tax thresholds frozen until 2028 – without introducing a get-out for retirees – will mean the state pension becomes taxable in two years' time.
Thanks to the triple lock, it will rise by 4.1pc next month before jumping another 4.6pc next April, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility. This will take the benefit to within £46 of the tax-free allowance next year, which it would then be guaranteed to exceed in 2027.
This would mean everyone on the new full state pension paid tax on it.
Before the election, the Conservatives pledged to introduce a 'triple lock plus' that would increase the allowance for older people, but the policy was not adopted by Labour.
Jon Greer, of Quilter, said: 'The Office for Budget Responsibility's latest forecasts confirm we are fast approaching a bizarre tax cliff-edge for pensioners. With the state pension forecast to rise by 4.6pc in April 2026 under the triple lock, it will land just below the frozen personal allowance.
'That leaves the UK potentially only one year away from pensioners having to effectively hand a portion of their state pension back to the Exchequer in tax, which to many would seem perverse.'
It comes as another 700,000 pensioners are already being dragged into paying income tax, with the total figure expected to hit 9.2 million by next year.
Our guide explains how to pay less tax on your pension.
5. Another inheritance tax raid on pensions
During her autumn Budget, Ms Reeves made the announcement that pensions would become part of someone's estate – and liable for inheritance tax – from 2027.
Experts slammed the move as a 'bear trap' and warned that grieving families could lose up to 90pc of a loved one's pension after taxes were deducted.
Some people are incurring five-figure tax charges to avoid the death duty, while others have resorted to giving their pensions away.
However, the policy's finer details have yet to be announced and some experts believe there could be yet more stings in the tail.
Mr Tully added: 'They could make sure death in service payments, where an employer pays say four times your salary to a beneficiary if you die while working for them, is included in inheritance tax considerations. Currently that is unclear, and to be decided.
'Many public sector employers, like teachers and nurses etc, receive these types of benefits and this could hurt their beneficiaries financially. For someone earning £50,000 a year, this change could cost their families £80,000 if it didn't go to their spouse.'
Mr Morgan said: 'The Chancellor could choose to clamp down on gifting rules as the older generation gives more of their money away in response to the greater restrictions around business assets and pensions.
'Greater restrictions on lifetime gifting could close off avenues for people to mitigate the crackdown on the planned curtailment of agricultural and business reliefs and the inclusion of pension pots in inheritance tax calculations.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Calls for delayed West Lothian train station to be funded by Scottish Government
Calls for delayed West Lothian train station to be funded by Scottish Government

Daily Record

time32 minutes ago

  • Daily Record

Calls for delayed West Lothian train station to be funded by Scottish Government

As the council and Winchburgh Developments prepare to meet potential funders of the long delayed station, Labour's Linlithgow councillor Tom Conn called on the SNP government to 'stop ducking and diving.' A veteran councillor in West Lothian called on the Scottish Government to 'put its money where its mouth is' on plans for a railway station in Winchburgh. As the council and Winchburgh Developments prepare to meet potential funders of the long delayed station, Labour's Linlithgow councillor Tom Conn called on the SNP government to 'stop ducking and diving.' ‌ Designs were revealed on Friday with the news that a planning application would come to West Lothian Council 'imminently.' ‌ A report to the Executive described the recently published Scottish Government Programme for Government 2025/26. It said: 'The programme makes specific reference to a railway station at Winchburgh in the section on A Safe Sustainable Transport System for Scotland.' Having committed to that, Councillor Conn called for a commitment to meet costs of the £22.5m development. Welcoming the news that progression had been made in the ten months of cooperation between the council, Winchburgh developments, Transport Scotland Network Rail - councillors echoed concerns that there have been no concrete guarantees of funding. Councillor Conn said: 'There needs to be public money invested directly by Scottish Government in Winchburgh. They cannot continually suggest it's other people, other organisations that need to find the money. 'This is an abdication of responsibility by the Scottish Government. If they don't want to take responsibility for it, they shouldn't put it in Programme for Government 2025/26. ‌ 'The Scottish government needs to stop ducking and diving and need to put their money where their mouth is. This is talking about rail investment strategy. If all it is is words, not backed up with cash, stop speaking. It's not helping.' Fellow Linlithgow councillor Sally Pattle said the progress had been like wading through treacle as she sought clarification of when a business plan could come to the council. When told it would be two to three months she responded: ' I would just like to welcome the fact that the Scottish Government reference Winchburgh in their programme for government although I'm slightly unclear as to what that will mean in practical terms to actually getting this project moving forward. ‌ ' I do welcome all the work that has been undertaken collaboratively between key stakeholders since last September but I have to say that still feels like we are moving through treacle. I would also very much like it to be recognised by officers and key stakeholders that the longer this drags on the greater the negative impact it is having on my ward of Linlithgow because of all the commuters that come into use the train station and then park anti-socially across the town to do so so it would be good if that could recognised going forward.' The report detailed passenger usage at neighbouring stations, including Linlithgow which sees 1,400 a day using the station. Gordon Brown, Roads and Transportation Manager told the meeting: 'Progress on the Outline Business Case now allows the steering group to progress discussions with the Scottish Government on the case for investment, alignment with the overall rail strategy, public value and contribution to government priorities. ‌ 'These matters will be addressed as part of the funding application subject, of course, to the City Region Deal Joint Committee supporting an application via that route.' The City Region Deal is a mechanism for accelerating growth. It is made up of six local authorities, universities and the private sector working with the Scottish and UK government to pull in investment.' Winchburgh councillor Angela Doran-Timson pressed Mr Brown on what other alternative investment options there would be if the City Region Deal did not agree to fund the station. ' Was there a plan B?' she asked. ‌ Mr Brown said there was ' no plan B' but to date 'no alternative funding sources had been identified' Councillor Doran-Timson said: 'I'll echo what Tom Conn said. I welcome the report, fingers crossed that the funding does come forward from the Scottish Government.' A TS spokesperson said: 'As co-promoters for Winchburgh Station, West Lothian Council and Winchburgh Developments Limited are responsible for developing a robust business case and securing the required capital funding, should it proceed. ‌ 'Transport Scotland, via ScotRail, has committed to fund the fit out of the station and its annual operational costs, should it be delivered.' Transport Scotland also issued a joint statement issued on behalf of West Lothian Council, Winchburgh Developments Ltd, Transport Scotland, Network Rail and ScotRail which said: 'Further work continues to explore opportunities for innovative construction techniques to support efficient and low-disruption delivery. 'A stakeholder meeting with Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity, Jim Fairlie MSP, is scheduled to take place in Winchburgh on 18 June. This will offer the minister the opportunity to see first-hand the progress made by the project partners.' ‌ That same statement contained comments from council leader Lawrence Fitzpatrick: 'It's extremely encouraging to see this project continuing to move forward at pace. With the planning application submitted and business case prepared, we're entering an important phase, which reflects the positive collaboration between all parties.' Linlithgow MSP Fiona Hyslop added: 'It is good to see progress being reported on Winchburgh Rail Station from the Stakeholder Group which I helped to set up as the local MSP. 'A route to additional funding has been identified, as I suggested, through the City Region Deal and design and location plans are ready to be submitted for planning permission. ‌ 'This has been possible due to constructive co-operation between Winchburgh Developers Ltd and Network Rail and this news is an important step forward. 'There is still more to do to deliver the Winchburgh Rail Station, and I look forward to meeting Winchburgh Developers later in June.'

UK government accused of 'contempt' after sole PIP cuts meeting in Wales cancelled
UK government accused of 'contempt' after sole PIP cuts meeting in Wales cancelled

Wales Online

time39 minutes ago

  • Wales Online

UK government accused of 'contempt' after sole PIP cuts meeting in Wales cancelled

UK government accused of 'contempt' after sole PIP cuts meeting in Wales cancelled No impact assessment has been made public about how many people in Wales would be impacted by the changes and the decision to cancel the only event scheduled in Wales has been labelled 'unforgivable' The UK Government has shown "contempt" for Wales by cancelling the single public consultation event there about its planned changes to PIP and Universal Credit. A single event for Wales was organised for the Mercure Hotel in Cardiff North, but it has now been cancelled and no replacement organised. In March, the UK Government announced proposals to change eligibility for Personal Independence Payments (PIP) and Universal Credit. For our free daily briefing on the biggest issues facing the nation, sign up to the Wales Matters newsletter here ‌ Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced major changes which will affect people claiming welfare payments saying there was both a "moral and economic" argument to reform the benefits system and that many people wanted to get back into work but needed help to do so. ‌ They say the changes will save £5bn. Despite repeated request from journalists and their political counterparts in Wales, no impact assessment has been made public by the UK Labour government about how many people in Wales would be impacted by the changes. There has been huge opposition with concerns about how people would be pushed into poverty by the proposals. Article continues below The UK impact assessment shows: 3.2m families – some current recipients and some future recipients – will financially lose out as a result of this package with an average loss of £1,720 per year compared to inflation 370,000 current recipients to lose entitlement to PIP and 430,000 future PIP recipients who do not get the PIP they would otherwise have been entitled with an average loss of £4,500 per year 250,000 people could be pushed into relative poverty, including 50,000 children, after housing costs You can read the data we have about that here. ‌ Protesters, angry at the changes, and who say the out-of-town location meant it was inaccessible for many people, instead met in Cardiff Central to protest. Plaid Cymru Senedd member Sioned Williams said the decision to cancel the sole consultation event showed contempt for Wales. She said: "It's unforgivable that the UK Government's one and only in-person consultation event in Wales on the proposed disability benefit cuts, which we know are going to push thousands more families and children into poverty has been cancelled. "It's contemptuous and yet another sign that Wales' voice doesn't matter to those in power at the UK level. ‌ "I would urge the First Minister, on behalf of the people of Wales, to use her good office, to ensure interested parties can take part in the consultation as is their democratic right and as is morally correct". It is understood the Welsh Government has asked the UK Government to rearrange the consultation event. A spokesman for Disability Rights UK said: "Welsh disabled people have a right to be completely outraged by the DWP's cancellation of the only consultative event in the country. 90% of people in Wales who claim the standard rate of Personal Independence Payment could lose money from these cuts, yet the DWP doesn't even want to speak to them. Article continues below "Last month, we had to write to the secretary of state because we believed that this consultation was sham-like. Today's events prove us right. How is it democratic for the DWP to be operating like this? These changes will affect millions, but the government is treating them like a foregone conclusion – undermining our basic democratic rights as disabled people. If I were a Welsh MP, I'd be very worried about disabled voters, friends and family and I wouldn't be putting my faith into supporting a department that is operating like the DWP is right now. We hope they all take this as yet another reason to vote against these dangerous cuts." The Department for Work and Pensions was contacted for comment.

If the government wants to save Thames Water, it's going to need to get its hands dirty
If the government wants to save Thames Water, it's going to need to get its hands dirty

The Independent

timean hour ago

  • The Independent

If the government wants to save Thames Water, it's going to need to get its hands dirty

The latest twist in the perma-crisis that is Thames Water came courtesy of the withdrawal of KKR from a rescue plan that now lies in tatters. The US private equity firm would have overseen a much needed £4bn recapitalisation of the debt ridden company, likely involving some of the existing lenders. Consumers may well have looked askance. KKR already has a substantial stake in Northumbrian Water which has itself faced plenty of controversy – and fines – over sewage spills and overcharging and the other sins common to this industry. But at least it wasn't looking to renegotiate their bills, which are already due to rise by more than a third over the next five years. The FT reported that it was hoping to reduce the vast fines faced by the firm – and the obvious problem with that is the message it sends to an industry that has done a rotten job. But it actually made some sort of sense given the company's financial difficulties, so long as strings were attached. The problem with fines like the record £123m penalty imposed on Thames last week is that they will ultimately reduce the resources available to fix its problems (the money typically goes to the Treasury). The decision by KKR, which has made no public comment, comes after weeks of extensive due diligence. Ultimately, the firm appears to have been defeated by both the complexity of the situation and the multiple competing stakeholders involved. Regulators, politicians and, not to put too fine a point on it, some very unhappy consumers who are understandably fed up with the regular sewage spills and the leaks they see going untreated on hot summer days when hose pipe bans are in force. Thames is a distressed asset. If you can get in at a favourable rate and fix it, then (amazing though it may seem) there is the prospect of a handy return. Trouble is, fixing Thames looks like a Sisyphean task even without the multiple cooks stirring the pot. Small wonder that customers are angry, and can't understand how Thames managed to pay dividends and bonuses while they were being told that the thing was teetering on the brink and that they would have to pay (much) more for a shabby service. It scarcely seems possible, but the water industry has somehow contrived to make a dysfunctional domestic energy market, and the companies operating within it, look good. Partly that's down to OfWat, which received its latest kicking courtesy of Independent Water Commission (IWC), led by a former deputy governor of the Bank of England. It has somehow contrived to make energy regulator OfGem look good. The IWC, however, also fired a volley at the political oversight of the sector. It called for a 'fundamental reset' identifying five key areas in need of a shake up ranging from strategy, to regulation, to ownership. Thing is, this is not rocket science. The problems have been staring us in the face for years. I've been writing about them for years. It is a terrible indictment of OfWat, and its political masters, that they have only gotten worse over time. The trouble is, of course, that the dysfunctional water industry is a political hot potato no one wants to grasp. The current administration is falling into the same trap that its predecessors fell into on that front. Steve Reed, the environment secretary, actually had the gall to claim, in an interview with LBC, that 'Thames remains stable'. Mr Reed was obviously seeking to reassure people that they will still be able to turn the taps on and have access to clean water for cooking, cleaning and drinking. However, to describe Thames as 'stable' is shockingly complacent. The preferred bidder has done a runner. Bosses are now scrambling to find a replacement from among the previous bidders, bondholders, hell anyone willing to take on this sow's ear of business, which is making a stellar contribution to the sense of national rot that helps to explains the rise of populists like Nigel Farage. It is often argued that nationalisation would not necessarily deliver a better outcome for the consumer, despite the consistently strong support among the public found by pollsters. And it is true that it would be dangerous to see it as a panacea. I suspect that a temporary spell in public ownership looks like the most likely end game to this sorry saga. But this is not a problem that can be solely fixed by the market, as this latest episode proves. Mr Reed needs to get a grip. So does Rachel Reeves, who is closely involved in this, given the borrowings Thames has. Keir Starmer, too. The current game of pass the buck isn't doing anyone any favours – and there is a real risk that we'll be here again in short order, even in the event that a private sector solution is somehow found. The government needs to accept that it is going to have to get its hands dirty to clean up the water industry. The IWC's interim report would be a good place to start. But Thames requires more immediate action.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store