Rachel Reeves' disaster tax raids risk pushing wealth and talent out of Britain, top banking boss warns
Goldman Sachs chief executive David Solomon warned the Chancellor that London 's status as a finance capital is now "fragile".
2
The banking chief added that Ms Reeves will drain Britain of wealth creators unless she provides "incentives" to keep them in the country, where they can boost economic growth.
It comes amid fears Labour is plotting to impose more levy raids at the Autumn budget, after caving in to backbench demands to continue splurging on welfare.
Mr Solomon told Sky News: "Policy matters, incentives matter.
"I'm encouraged by some of what the current government is talking about in terms of supporting business and trying to support a more growth oriented agenda.
"But if you don't set a policy that keeps talent here, that encourages capital formation here, I think over time you risk that."
The top banker added that the City of London would "fray" without being treated more carefully by the Treasury.
At last year's Budget the Chancellor hiked the lower rate of capital gains tax to 18 per cent, up from 10.
The higher rate was increased from 20 to 24 per cent.
But between January and July this year, the levy accrued just £11.8 billion, leaving government coffers worse off than the £13.5billion secured during the same period in 2024.
The receipts for 2024-25 were around £200million less than the government's economic watchdog predicted.
Shaun Moore, tax and financial planning expert at investment firm Quilter, slammed the Chancellor's tax raids for having "backfired".
He said: "The government's decision to slash capital gains tax allowances and hike rates has backfired.
"The policy may have been designed to raise revenue, but it's instead prompted behavioural shifts that have dented the tax take."
'While taxing the wealthiest may sound politically appealing, the CGT experience shows that people will change behaviour or adjust their financial plans to mitigate the tax bills."
Labour has wrecked the economy
By Ryan Sabey, Deputy Political Editor
IF Rachel Reeves was heading into Parliament's summer break with a huge headache, things just got a whole lot worse.
The Chancellor woke up yesterday to a storm around Government borrowing hitting £20.7billion last month.
The figure — higher than the £17.1billion forecast for the period — was fuelled by a rise in the interest charges on government debt.
And now, instead of blue skies and sunshine over the summer, Ms Reeves will have to deal with dark clouds gathering over the Treasury.
She has said that 'the world has changed' since her previous Budget, with Donald Trump's global tariffs creating uncertainty.
But the harsh reality is that a series of decisions this Government made has wrecked what was always going to be a fragile recovery.
The decision to increase NI contributions for employers had a devastating impact on expansion and hiring plans — and wrecked confidence.
Anger was also levelled at her and Sir Keir Starmer for talking the country down when Labour first came to power, as they painted a gloomy economic outlook for Britain.
This is all before businesses face the roll-out of the workers' rights package over the next two years, which will hit firms for £5billion, according to the Government's own impact assessment.
And better prospects for working people appear doomed as wealth creators flee the country due to the high-tax environment, with around 16,500 expected to leave this year.
And this self-inflicted misery could be compounded further in the Budget this autumn as Ms Reeves tries to solve her spending shortfall.
The financial black hole has only been made worse by this month's £5billion welfare reform U-turn and the £1.5billion she will now have to find after the partial retreat on Winter Fuel payments.
Economists have already said that the Chancellor may have to fund a £30billion shortfall to meet her fiscal rules, and higher taxes are a near-certainty because Whitehall departments have already faced brutal cuts.
Ms Reeves insisted yesterday that UK productivity was the problem. She said low investment levels compared to other G7 countries had led to UK output not keeping pace with our competitors.
Reeves said it would be easy to cut capital spending, but these would be 'short-sighted, wrong decisions'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Attention all shoppers! This everyday item may soon put up the cost of your weekly shop…
For the sixth month in a row, food prices have risen in the UK – with the latest figures from the British Retail Consortium (BRC) revealing the worst hit items are basics, such as eggs, meat, cheese and milk. Another casualty of food inflation, according to this month's data, is the humble cuppa – with teabags seeing a sharp increase of 4 per cent this month, up from 3.7 per cent in June. These increases are cumulative. Even if food price inflation falls – and there is precious little sign of that – prices will still rise. The BRC's number isn't quite as bad as that produced by WorldPanel, formerly Kantar, though, which recorded a 5.2 per cent rise during July. But that's just comparing 'bad' with 'worse'. Even so, the fact remains that it's everyday essentials and shopping staples that are going up in price – something we should all be worried about. Food price inflation hits those on low incomes hardest. True, tea isn't something you need in order to live. But come on: if even tea is being pushed into the luxury category there's clearly a larger issue at play. So, what's to blame? As ever, it's down to a combination of factors. Food inflation has risen across the board because of the extra costs loaded onto supermarkets by, you guessed it, the government – including Rachel Reeves' decision to increase employer national insurance contributions (NICs) while lowering the threshold at which the levy kicks in. This has hit grocers particularly hard because of the high number of relatively low-waged staff they employ. The chancellor promised not to tax 'working people', but these figures clearly demonstrate that she has done exactly that. Other regulations have further tightened the screw. Grocers have been chafing at the 'extended producer responsibility scheme' – better known as the packaging tax. April created a cliff edge, with these changes hitting at the same time as a higher minimum wage, which further hiked labour costs. The supermarkets all pay above the minimum and boosted pay rates to keep them above the floor. And don't forget Brexit, which increased the cost of importing food from the EU. (Some of this is on the previous government, of course.) Combined, these measures injected a super-concentrated shot of adrenaline into food prices, exacerbated by the fact that supermarket suppliers had to grapple with the same higher NICs and wage pressures. Some individual food items, however, face specific pressures on top of all that – including tea. Although it might come from abroad, it isn't entirely immune from higher UK labour costs. Yorkshire Tea, for example, is packaged in Harrogate. However, that pales by comparison to the impact of climate change, which hits producers' yields. Like many agricultural crops, tea has rather specific requirements when it comes to temperature, rainfall, humidity and so on. Climate change is leading to more erratic weather conditions – thus lowering production. Add in geopolitical instability – the war in Ukraine, Houthi attacks on shipping, etc – and you can see why the price of your daily cuppa is leaving an unusually bitter taste. The UK-India trade deal should help. But the benefits from lower tariffs are nowhere near enough to stop the kettle boiling. Meat prices have surged as a result of a combination of increased consumption, both globally and locally, and reduced production. Eric Lyons, a Solihull-based butchers, explains in blog post that UK beef consumption is forecast to increase by 1 per cent while production is set to decline by 5 per cent. 'This is further expedited through the closure of farms. Last year, around 30 farms in Scotland shut down, significantly reducing local production and adding to the supply shortage,' the company said. Avian flu, meanwhile, has cut the number of chickens available for slaughter. Butter has been affected by reduced dairy production at a time of high demand and all the other nasties. This helps to explain why hopes that a supermarket price war – which looked to be breaking out a few months back – would put a lid on food price inflation have all but evaporated. Faced with rising consumer discontent, and more and more anguished consumers filling up MPs' inboxes, we can expect politicians to seek scapegoats. This happened the last time food price inflation spiked a couple of years back (when it was even worse). There was a great deal of chuntering among MPs about the grocery sector and the Competition & Markets Authority was drafted in. Here's what it concluded: "Overall, we didn't find widespread evidence of weak competition: profit margins were historically low; consumers were switching to get the best deals; and the lowest-price retailers were gaining market share from others.' So that one isn't going to fly. If the government wants to reduce the burden on 'working people' – the people hardest hit – at a time when so many pressures are pushing prices up, here's what it should do: Reverse the increase in national insurance, scrap the reduced threshold at which it kicks in, repeal the packaging tax, and consider rejoining the European single market. Yes, yes. I know. Those are fantasies. So prices look set to remain elevated. The best we can hope for is for the government not to dream up anything that makes it worse (such as threatening to fine supermarkets for failing to sell enough healthy food to help tackle obesity.) Ministers should think very carefully about such apparently high-minded ideas that come with an expensive sting in the tail. But I'm not holding my breath. Are you?
Reuters
2 hours ago
- Reuters
Oil tycoon Shvidler loses appeal over UK's Russian sanctions
LONDON, July 29 (Reuters) - Billionaire oil tycoon Eugene Shvidler on Tuesday lost his appeal against British sanctions imposed on him over Moscow's invasion of Ukraine at the UK's Supreme Court, a ruling lawyers said makes it difficult for similar challenges to succeed. Russian-born Shvidler, who is a British and U.S. citizen, was sanctioned over his association with former Chelsea Football Club owner Roman Abramovich, plus his former position as a director of London-listed Russian steel producer Evraz (EVRE.L), opens new tab. Shvidler – whose net worth is estimated by Forbes magazine at $1.6 billion – appealed to the Supreme Court, with his lawyers arguing that others with greater involvement in business of importance to Russia were not sanctioned, citing BP's (BP.L), opens new tab previous joint venture with Rosneft ( opens new tab. The Supreme Court rejected Shvidler's appeal by a four-to-one majority in a ruling that Shvidler said "brings me back to the USSR". The ruling also maintains Britain's 100% record of defending its Russian sanctions in court. Shvidler said in a statement that no British companies or business people with ties to Russian state-owned companies have been sanctioned, adding that Britain's sanctions were "more about cheap virtue-signalling for purely political purposes". "There may be little public sympathy for me, as a wealthy US/UK businessman, but this judgment applies to all who face state power," he added. Britain's Foreign Office, which has overseen the sanctioning of more than 1,700 individuals or entities since Russia's invasion, welcomed the ruling "and the message it sends about the strength of the UK sanctions regime". Shvidler had said British sanctions have destroyed his business and disrupted his and his family's lives. His lawyers previously said he has no involvement in or influence over Russian politics and had not even been to Russia since attending the late Russian President Boris Yeltsin's funeral in 2007. But the majority of the Supreme Court ruled that the sanctions struck a fair balance between Shvidler's rights and the aims of the sanctions regime. In the majority's judgment, Judges Philip Sales and Vivien Rose said sanctioning Shvidler "sends a clear signal to people in Mr Shvidler's position that they would be wise to distance themselves from Russian business now". But Judge George Leggatt, in a strident dissenting ruling, said Britain's "flimsy reasons" for sanctioning Shvidler did not justify the "serious invasion of liberty" sanctions entailed. He noted BP's profitable joint venture with Rosneft, having two members on its board, and said it was irrational to only sanction Shvidler if "sanctioning an individual for working as a director of a company which had invested in the Russian extractives sector was thought likely to contribute to achieving the purposes" of British sanctions. BP declined to comment. Maia Cohen-Lask, a partner at Corker Binning, said the Supreme Court's ruling was "a huge blow not just for Mr Shvidler but for any person who has been sanctioned despite their lack of any links to the Putin regime". The Supreme Court also dismissed a separate appeal brought by Russian businessman Sergei Naumenko, whose 44 million euro ($51 million) superyacht was detained in London.
BBC News
2 hours ago
- BBC News
Consortium 'ready' to buy ailing Morecambe
London-based sports investment company Panjab Warriors have released a statement to say they are "ready, willing and able" to buy Shrimps were suspended by the National League until 20 August on Monday over failing to comply with the league's Warriors have been in talks with the club's owner Jason Whittingham for over a year and a deal had looked set to be concluded earlier this have now said in a joint-statement with minority shareholders, the Shrimps Trust and Lizzi Collinge MP that the National League is ready to sanction the deal and "immediately lift the suspension and embargo should it be agreed". As it stands, Morecambe's fixture away to Boston United on 9 August, their first home game against Brackley Town on 16 August, and the trip to Scunthorpe United on 19 August, will no longer take place as who has been looking to sell the club since 2022, announced a new buyer, named as a consortium led by Jonny Cato, had been found earlier in July, but it remains unclear where that bid also said on Sunday he had "not heard from" Panjab Warriors in the past week and talks with Cato were Lancashire side, who were promoted to League One in 2021, were relegated from League Two last season - their second relegation in the past three seasons.
