Seven million workers dragged into higher income tax bands
Seven million people have been dragged into paying higher rates of income tax as a result of a stealth raid on wages, figures show.
Frozen thresholds have forced an extra 520,000 taxpayers into the 40p bracket in the last year, according to estimates by HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC).
It brings the total to just over seven million in 2025-26, a 60pc rise from the 4.4 million in 2021-22 when income tax thresholds were first frozen under the Tories.
The sharp rise in higher-rate taxpayers comes despite Labour's manifesto pledge not to raise taxes on working people.
The number of 45p additional-rate taxpayers has more than doubled from 520,000 to 1.2 million over the same period.
The figures also reveal that an extra two million pensioners have been pulled into the tax net in the last four years. Some 8.7 million people aged 66 and over are now paying tax on their income, up by a third in 2021-22.
Income tax thresholds, including the £12,570 tax-free 'personal allowance' have been frozen since 2022.
Keeping thresholds frozen means earners lose a larger share of their incomes to tax, as inflation pushes up wages in a process known as fiscal drag.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has committed to maintain the freeze until 2028 – the deadline under the Tories.
However, there are fears that the Chancellor may choose to extend the freeze beyond this date in a bid to plug gaps in the country's finances.
Expectations are mounting that the Chancellor will be forced to raise taxes in the October Budget despite stating that the slew of tax rises last October was a 'once in a generation' event.
Labour's winter fuel payment about-turn, a rumoured end of the two-child benefit cap, higher government borrowing costs and a possible productivity downgrade have all piled pressure on Ms Reeves to raise revenue.
Jon Greer, head of retirement policy at Quilter, said: 'The sharp rise in the number of people who are state pension age and now paying income tax is a direct consequence of the decision to freeze the personal allowance since 2021 and a textbook example of fiscal drag in action.
'Many of these individuals are not high earners but are simply victims of a frozen threshold in a period of rising prices. For some, it's their first experience of paying income tax in retirement, and it's leading to confusion, frustration, and unexpected bills.'
Laura Suter, director of personal finance at AJ Bell said both pensioners and working people were feeling the impact of the stealth tax raid.
She added: 'Rising incomes and frozen thresholds mean the taxman is set to rake in an extra £20bn this year, with the total income tax haul set to rise to £323bn.
'In contrast, in the first year of the income tax threshold freeze, the Government collected £245bn in tax. The staggering £78bn climb in the nation's annual income tax bill illustrates the huge impact the tax freeze has had on our finances.'
A Treasury spokesperson said 'This Government inherited the previous government's policy of frozen tax thresholds.
'At the Budget and the Spring Statement, the Chancellor announced that we would not extend that freeze.
'We are also protecting payslips for working people by keeping our promise to not raise the basic, higher or additional rates of income tax, employee national insurance or VAT.
'That's the plan for change – protecting people's incomes and putting money into people's pockets.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
14 minutes ago
- Times
BBC staff told not to fight with family and friends over Gaza coverage
The BBC's director-general has warned staff not to 'fight' with their friends and family who are critical of the broadcaster's coverage of the war in Gaza. Tim Davie acknowledged that the conflict has been 'incredibly difficult' for staff from communities who consider that its output has not been 'representative of its views' during an all-staff 'ask me anything' session earlier this month. He urged them to adopt 'common sense' in response to concerns from one staffer that they frequently faced accusations about the BBC being a propaganda machine and biased about Gaza, according to the entertainment industry website Deadline. 'I love my job, but sometimes I can't tell anyone I work here for fear of arguments,' they said. Davie told staff that there was no expectation for them to defend the BBC's output. 'There's no pressure on anyone to fight for the BBC in that context,' he said. 'They've got to look after themselves, protect their family relationships, protect their friendships. That is sacrosanct to me'. • Tim Davie warns staff about 'antisemitic behaviour' at the BBC He added that trust in the BBC among audiences remains high and suggested staff could point to the data that reflects this if they felt it was appropriate. 'We're all advocates for the BBC. We're all ambassadors for the BBC. But let's be reasonable, and let's use common sense about this,' he said. 'Some issues are very tough, and I know it's been incredibly difficult for some people within communities who do feel that the coverage is not representative, in their view, of what is going on.' Deborah Turness, the chief executive of BBC News, suggested that some critics of the BBC's coverage are stuck in online echo chambers. 'A lot of people are reading a lot of content on social media feeds, which are algorithmically driven. So it reinforces the rabbit hole of perspective,' she said. • Viewers' opinions on BBC News to be gathered for first time 'When people come out of that quite polarised environment in their media feeds and meet BBC content, which is striving to be impartial, they can feel that it is an attack on their values.' The BBC faced criticism this week from the producer of a documentary about doctors working in Gaza after it decided to drop the film. The corporation said that it was handing Gaza: Doctors Under Attack — also known as Gaza: Medics Under Fire — back to its producer, Basement Films, because of fears that it was biased. Basement Films' head, the former Channel 4 News editor Ben de Pear, apologised to the contributors and criticised the BBC for reversing its original decision, having promised to release it on six occasions. • BBC will not ban Kneecap from its Glastonbury coverage Production was paused in April pending the conclusion of an investigation into another programme, Gaza: How To Survive a Warzone, which featured the teenage son of a Hamas official as a narrator. The investigation was undertaken by Peter Johnston, the BBC's director of editorial complaints. The report is understood to have been delivered to Samir Shah, the BBC's chair, and is expected to be published shortly.
The Independent
17 minutes ago
- The Independent
Has any government crashed as quickly as this one? Yes, and it's not even close...
Almost one year into the Starmer administration and the question is already being asked: has a government ever crashed so quickly? There's no denying the dismal poll ratings in which Labour now regularly runs behind Reform UK, the disappointing election results, mixed signals on the economy, U-turns, disarray in the parliamentary party and talk of 'regime change' (in No 10, not Tehran). There is obvious cause for Labour supporters to be disheartened, but some reasons to be cheerful too… How bad is the decline? It's not as bad as it looks. On the basis that, at the last general election, Keir Starmer converted Boris Johnson's 2019 Commons majority of 81 into a Labour overall majority of 174, it was indeed a stunning, historic performance – the best 'conversion' for any party since the Second World War. However, such a picture flatters to deceive. It was all done with fabulously tepid public support. Labour's vote share was 33.7 per cent, less than any other winning party in modern times, with only about one in five of the electorate expressing positive support. Starmer 's personal ratings were also modest as he went into the general election, certainly by comparison with, say, Tony Blair's stellar image in 1997. It's true that Labour poll ratings on the eve of the 2024 election were over-optimistic, and it's a little hazardous to compare real results with polls. But the overall point remains; Labour were never as loved as we might falsely imagine or discern from the eccentricities of the British electoral system. But is it still bad? Yes, in terms of a government emerging from a general election with a comfortable majority and sinking so low within a year of that result. But if we extend our timescale a little, it's also true that almost every such government suffers 'mid-term blues'. Blair's prolonged honeymoon after 1997 is a notable exception, and some administrations have gone into apparently terminal decline within about two to three years, but have recovered. The most spectacular post-war example would be how the Suez crisis in the autumn of 1956 wrecked Anthony Eden's government after he'd won an easy victory over Labour in May 1955. In that case, a change of leader helped preserve Tory rule the next time round. Another precipitous decline in reputation and standing – actually faster than Starmer's – followed John Major's election win in April 1992. His majority was slight (21 seats overall) but he'd beaten Labour by a solid seven percentage points. However, on 16 September 1992, 'Black Wednesday', sterling was forcibly ejected from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism and the Tory party's reputation for economic competence was shredded with it. An impressive economic recovery followed, but with little beneficial effect on the divided Tories' poll ratings. Even at the time, it looked like the die was cast for Labour's triumph in 1997. Slightly exceptional must be Boris Johnson's squandering of the historic achievement he enjoyed in 2019. He made his own share of mistakes – overpromising, underdelivering, Partygate, sleaze and misleading parliament – but the effect of the Covid pandemic on the economy also had something to do with his mostly self-inflicted fall from grace. After all, his personal ratings peaked during the vaccine rollout in 2021, and he was gone a year or so later when party and public lost patience with him. Which prime minister got it right? Margaret Thatcher. Her government, elected in May 1979, had a decent mandate but fell into deep economic trouble and disarray by 1981 in the depths of recession. She was rescued by a divided opposition, economic recovery, the 'Falklands factor' and a certain steadiness of nerve. A landslide followed in 1983. What about Labour governments? They don't win that many elections. A close analogy would be Harold Wilson 's second administration; he was also elected with a landslide – a majority of 97, in 1966 – but by 1968, the pound had been devalued, his economic planning policy was dead, and the government's popularity had collapsed, with historically bad local election and by-election results. However, Wilson and his chancellor, Roy Jenkins, took Reeves-style tough decisions and went through the 'hard slog' of tax rises and spending cuts to stage a formidable recovery. They still had to sacrifice major legislation to backbench revolts (reform of the Lords and the trade unions respectively), but were not far off winning the 1970 general election. Instead, the victor was a Tory leader most had written off as hopelessly bad at the job. Any other comforts for Labour? Well, Starmer is only the third Labour leader to win a general election, and he's already been in office longer than Liz Truss, who breaks all records for political dive-bombing (albeit some distance past the previous general election). Starmer will probably surpass Alex Douglas-Home's 363 days in No 10 (1963-64), and if he makes it to the next general election, he'll beat Johnson, Callaghan, Heath and May for time in office. He might even win again to complete his 'decade of renewal'. A volatile electorate, the intervention of Reform UK and the Tories' extreme weakness might throw up all sorts of surprises. History proves that economic success can sometimes yield dramatic post-nadir electoral dividends. It might happen. If so, by 2033 or 2034, Starmer could look back on his current travails as mere 'noises off'. But not yet.
Telegraph
19 minutes ago
- Telegraph
France could take back Channel migrants under new deal
Sir Keir Starmer is in talks with France to return Channel migrants in a 'one in, one out' deal. Ministers are understood to hope that they can announce an agreement in principle when Emmanuel Macron, the French president, makes his state visit to the UK next month for the Anglo-French summit. Under the scheme, Britain would send back Channel migrants to France within weeks of their arrival in return for the UK taking asylum seekers from France. Home Office sources indicated that a returns scheme was a 'work in progress'. France has resisted such moves since the Dublin returns agreement was scrapped under Brexit and argued that any new agreement would have to be EU-wide. However, France opened the door to taking back Channel migrants for the first time after Bruno Retailleau, the French interior minister, said that it would 'send a clear message' to others planning to make the journey. France has also agreed to start intercepting migrant 'taxi boats' at sea for the first time after previously refusing to do so for fear of breaching maritime safety laws. The policy change driven through by Mr Retailleau is expected to be confirmed at the summit, which is taking place from July 8-10. The moves come after small boat crossings hit record levels with more than 18,000 migrants having reached the UK so far this year, up 43 per cent on the same point last year and the highest number since the first arrivals in 2018. The French have been open to a pilot, one-for-one scheme, which, if successful, could be extended EU-wide. The EU has previously rejected returns agreements that are only bilateral between two countries. A deal would be limited to the UK taking asylum seekers in France with family connections in Britain in exchange for a corresponding number of Channel migrants being returned to France. No 10 has, however, also been studying more ambitious returns schemes. Senior figures from the European Stability Initiative (ESI) have been invited to Downing Street twice in the past eight months to present their ideas. In their presentations, ESI proposed almost every Channel migrant would be returned to France within three to four weeks with very occasional exceptions for people with the strongest family connections to the UK. In return, the UK would agree to take in a capped number of asylum seekers from the EU of, for example, 20,000 a year under a time-limited scheme. They argued that without a near-100 per cent return rate, there would be no deterrent to crossings, predicting that as soon as it became clear there was no prospect of success, the incentive for migrants to make the dangerous, expensive journeys would evaporate. The ESI team argued that their scheme could be extended to a wider group of countries than just France. It also offered them a model for striking their own 'returns' deals with countries that were the source of illegal migrants. The EU has already backed the creation of return 'hubs' - temporary detention centres in non-EU countries where deported migrants would wait before being sent back. Sir Keir confirmed last month that the UK was also in talks with a 'number of countries' about return hubs for failed asylum seekers, which he described as a 'really important innovation'. Home Office sources said it was uncertain whether a deal would be formally announced at the Anglo-French summit. However, they will face pressure not to limit the number of migrants they can send back to France. Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, warned that the scheme would fail unless all illegal migrants were denied asylum in the UK and removed from Britain. 'We pay the French half a billion pounds to wave the boats off from Calais, and in return we get a merry-go-round where the same number still come here,' he said. 'The French are failing to stop the boats at sea, failing to return them like the Belgians do, and now instead of demanding real enforcement, Labour are trying a 'one in, one out' gimmick. 'If Labour were serious, they would not have scrapped the returns deterrent the National Crime Agency said we needed – instead, they've surrendered our immigration system. Pathetic.'
