Rachel Reeves should end national insurance loophole for law firms
As reported in the Law Society Gazette in November last year, closing this NI 'loophole' could have raised £4bn from just the four 'magic circle' LLP law firms. This would seem compatible with Labour's manifesto pledge not to raise tax or NI on workers, but maybe this would upset too many of Keir Starmer's rich lawyer cronies?
The change seems to have been widely expected last year, but quietly dropped without trace. Unless there's a very good reason why this shouldn't be implemented (in which case, let's hear it), I would strongly urge Starmer and Rachel Reeves to reconsider this decision.
This strikes at the heart of economic justice. The current system favours the wealthy and well-advised – including former colleagues of Starmer in elite legal firms – while ordinary working people are asked to carry more of the burden.
If Labour's economic credibility hinges on fairness and responsibility, then this is exactly where Reeves should be looking – not at further cuts at the expense of the majority of taxpayers and those in most need.David ReedTaunton, Somerset
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
21 minutes ago
- The Independent
Inheritance tax changes under consideration amid spending gap concerns
The Treasury is reportedly exploring options to raise additional revenue from inheritance tax ahead of the autumn budget. According to The Guardian, officials are examining whether tightening rules around the gifting of assets and money could help address the UK's multi-billion-pound fiscal shortfall. Government U-turns over winter fuel payments and welfare reform have left Chancellor Rachel Reeves with a multibillion-pound spending gap to fill, amid similarly controversial pushes for a 'wealth tax' by some Labour MPs. Among the reported inheritance tax measures under consideration is a potential cap on lifetime gifts, part of a broader review into how assets can be transferred before death to minimise inheritance tax liabilities. A Treasury spokesperson said: 'The best way to strengthen public finances is by growing the economy – which is our focus. Changes to tax and spend policy are not the only ways of doing this, as seen with our planning reforms, which are expected to grow the economy by £6.8bn and cut borrowing by £3.4bn. 'We are committed to keeping taxes for working people as low as possible, which is why at last autumn's budget, we protected working people's payslips and kept our promise not to raise the basic, higher or additional rates of income tax, employee national insurance or VAT.' Under current UK rules, gifts made more than seven years before a person's death are exempt from inheritance tax. Gifts made between three and seven years prior are taxed on a sliding scale, depending on their value and the total estate. Last week, National Institute of Economic and Social Research (Niesr) predicted Rachel Reeves is now set for a £41.2 billion shortfall on her 'stability rule' in 2029-30 and has been left with an 'impossible trilemma' of trying to meet her fiscal rules while fulfilling spending commitments and upholding a manifesto pledge not to raise taxes. She will need to raise taxes or cut spending in the autumn budget to plug the gap, Niesr cautioned. In July, some Labour Party figures, including former leader Lord Neil Kinnock and Wales's First Minister Baroness Eluned Morgan, called for a wealth tax. Ms Reeves has not ruled out the possibility of a new wealth tax but has been eager to highlight that she will stick to her commitment not to hike tax for 'working people'. However, Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds dismissed the idea. 'This Labour Government has increased taxes on wealth as opposed to income – the taxes on private jets, private schools, changes through inheritance tax, capital gains tax,' he told GB News. 'But the idea there's a magic wealth tax, some sort of levy… that doesn't exist anywhere in the world. 'Switzerland has a levy but they don't have capital gains or inheritance tax. 'There's no kind of magic (tax). We're not going to do anything daft like that.'
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
UK police should consider revealing ethnicity of suspects, says new guidance
Police forces should consider disclosing the ethnicity and migration status of suspects when they are charged in high-profile and sensitive investigations, according to new official guidance. After a row over claims that police 'covered up' the backgrounds of two men charged in connection with the alleged rape of a child, the National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) and the College of Policing have backed plans to release details of nationality when there is a 'policing purpose' for doing so. This could be to reduce the risk to public safety, 'where there are high levels of mis- or disinformation about a particular incident', or in cases of significant public interest, senior police said. The decision to release new guidance has been praised by a former senior prosecutor, who said it could help counter rumours and disinformation which spread on social media. But it will also anger some anti-racist campaigners, who have expressed concern that such proposals could risk framing violence against women and girls as an issue of ethnicity instead of misogyny. The decision comes after Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, urged police to release the details of ethnicity last week. Forces are already encouraged to publicise charging decisions in serious cases, the NPCC said. Decisions on whether to release this information will remain with forces, an NPCC statement said, with wider legal and ethical considerations. The Home Office will decide if it is 'appropriate in all the circumstances' to confirm immigration status of a suspect, the guidance said. Failure to share basic facts about the Southport killer last summer led to 'dangerous fictions' which helped spark rioting, an independent watchdog found. Jonathan Hall KC, the UK's independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said it would have been 'far better' for the authorities to share more accurate detail about the arrest of Axel Rudakubana on 29 July last year. Far-right agitators wrongly claimed that the killer was a Muslim asylum seeker. Deputy chief constable Sam de Reya, the NPCC lead for communications and media, said: 'We saw during last summer's disorder, as well as in several recent high-profile cases, what the major, real-world consequences can be from what information police release into the public domain. 'We have to make sure our processes are fit for purpose in an age of social media speculation and where information can travel incredibly quickly across a wide range of channels. 'Disinformation and incorrect narratives can take hold in a vacuum. It is good police work for us to fill this vacuum with the facts about issues of wider public interest.' Nazir Afzal, the former chief crown prosecutor for North West England, cautiously welcomed the decision. 'Trust is so low that more transparency is a good thing, as recent experience has shown. It has to be on a case by case basis though,' he said. The Warwickshire police and crime commissioner, Philip Seccombe, called for fresh national guidance after police were accused by Reform UK of failing to confirm that two Afghan men being prosecuted for an alleged attack on a 12-year-old girl were asylum seekers. The alleged rape, said to have happened on 22 July, was at the centre of a political storm after the Reform leader, Nigel Farage, amplified claims of a police cover-up. Ahmad Mulakhil has been charged with rape and Mohammad Kabir has been charged with kidnap and strangulation.
Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
Going to university is not what it once was - and students face a very different question
For around 700,000 teenagers on the treadmill that is the English education system, the A and T-level results that drop this week may be the most important step of all. They matter because they open the door to higher education, and a crucial life decision based on an unwritten contract that has stood since the 1960s: the better the marks, the greater the choice of institution and course available to applicants, and in due course, the value of the degree at the end of it. A quarter of a century after Tony Blair set a target of 50% of school-leavers going to university, however, the fundamentals of that deal have been transformed. Today's prospective undergraduates face rising costs of tuition and debt, new labour market dynamics, and the uncertainties of the looming AI revolution. Together, they pose a different question: Is going to university still worth it? Huge financial costs Of course, the value of the university experience and the degree that comes with it cannot be measured by finances alone, but the costs are unignorable. For today's students, the universal free tuition and student grants enjoyed by their parents' generation have been replaced by annual fees that increase to £9,500 this year. Living costs meanwhile will run to at least £61,000 over three years, according to new research. Together, they will leave graduates saddled with average debts of £53,000, which, under new arrangements, they repay via a "graduate tax" of 9% on their earnings above £25,000 for up to 40 years. A squeezed salary gap As well as rising fees and costs of finance, graduates will enter a labour market in which the financial benefits of a degree are less immediately obvious. Graduates do still enjoy a premium on starting salaries, but it may be shrinking thanks to advances in the minimum wage. The Institute of Student Employers says the average graduate starting salary was £32,000 last year, though there is a wide variation depending on career. With the minimum wage rising 6% to more than £26,000 this April, however, the gap to non-degree earners may have reduced. A reduction in earning power may be compounded by the phenomenon of wage compression, which sees employers having less room to increase salaries across the pay scale because the lowest, compulsory minimum level has risen fast. Taken over a career, however, the graduate premium remains unarguable. Government data shows a median salary for all graduates aged 16-64 in 2024 of £42,000 and £47,000 for post-graduates, compared to £30,500 for non-graduates. Graduates are also more likely to be in employment and in highly skilled jobs. There is also little sign of buyer's remorse. A University of Bristol survey of more than 2,000 graduates this year found that, given a second chance, almost half would do the same course at the same institution. And while a quarter would change course or university, only 3% said they would have skipped higher education. No surprise then that industry body Universities UK believes the answer to the question is an unequivocal "yes", even if the future of graduate employment remains unclear. "This is a decision every individual needs to take for themselves; it is not necessarily the right decision for everybody. More than half the 18-year-old population doesn't progress to university," says chief executive Vivienne Stern. "But if you look at it from a purely statistical point of view, there is absolutely no question that the majority who go to university benefit not only in terms of earnings." 'Roll with the punches' She is confident that graduates will continue to enjoy the benefits of an extended education even if the future of work is profoundly uncertain. "I think now more than ever you need to have the resilience that you acquire from studying at degree level to roll with the punches. "If the labour market changes under you, you might need to reinvent yourself several times during your career in order to be able to ride out changes that are difficult to predict. That resilience will hold its value." The greatest change is likely to come from AI, the emerging technology whose potential to eat entry-level white collar jobs may be fulfilled even faster than predicted. The recruitment industry is already reporting a decline in graduate-level posts. Anecdotally, companies are already banking cuts to legal, professional, and marketing spend because an AI can produce the basic output almost instantly, and for free. That might suggest a premium returning to non-graduate jobs that remain beyond the bots. An AI might be able to pull together client research or write an ad, but as yet, it can't change a washer or a catheter. It does not, however, mean the degree is dead, or that university is worthless, though the sector will remain under scrutiny for the quality and type of courses that are offered. The government is in the process of developing a new skills agenda with higher education at its heart, but second-guessing what the economy will require in a year, never mind 10, has seldom been harder. Universities will be crucial to producing the skilled workers the UK needs to thrive, from life sciences to technology, but reducing students to economic units optimised by "high value" courses ignores the unquantifiable social, personal, and professional benefits going to university can bring. In a time when culture wars are played out on campus, it is also fashionable to dismiss attendance at all but the elite institutions on proven professional courses as a waste of time and money. (A personal recent favourite came from a columnist with an Oxford degree in PPE and a career as an economics lecturer.) The reality of university today means that no student can afford to ignore a cost-benefit analysis of their decision, but there is far more to the experience than the job you end up with. Even AI agrees. Ask ChatGPT if university is still worth it, and it will tell you: "That depends on what you mean by worth - financially, personally, professionally - because each angle tells a different story."
