Rachel Reeves urged to raise income tax for first time in 50 years
Rachel Reeves should consider raising the basic rate of income tax for the first time in 50 years, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has said.
Paul Johnson suggested the Chancellor follow in the footsteps of Denis Healey, the former Labour chancellor, and take 'drastic action' by increasing the basic rate of income tax, which is currently 20pc, in her autumn Budget.
However, experts warn it would leave workers hundreds of pounds worse off a year.
Writing in The Times on Monday, Mr Johnson said: 'If Reeves does find herself in need of more money come the autumn, perhaps she should take a leaf from the book of her distinguished predecessor both as Labour chancellor and as an MP for the city of Leeds: break the 50-year taboo, be honest and transparent in her choice of tax policy, and raise the basic rate of income tax.'
Tuesday marks exactly 50 years since Mr Healey raised the basic rate from 33pc to 35pc when faced with surging inflation and high unemployment.
In the years since, politicians have moved 'heaven and earth' to avoid raising it, Mr Johnson said.
Income tax is the simplest way for the Treasury to bring in large amounts of revenue. A one percentage point increase in the basic rate would raise £8bn, while a two percentage point increase would generate over £16bn, according to calculations by accountancy firm Blick Rothenberg.
However, the move is deeply politically unpopular because it would leave millions of workers worse off. A worker on £30,000 would see their annual pay fall by £175 if the rate increased to 21pc and £349 if it rose to 22pc. Meanwhile, a worker earning £50,000 would be worse off by £375 or £749 respectively.
As a result, successive Chancellors have only ever reduced the rate since Mr Healey's 1975 Budget. It is currently charged at 20pc on income earned between £12,571 and £50,270.
Experts now predict that Ms Reeves will be forced to either increase taxes or cut spending in the autumn Budget to avoid breaking her self-imposed fiscal rules.
Britain's tax burden is already soaring to a post-war high, with the income tax bill expected to leap from £260bn in 2024-25 to £310bn in 2027-28.
Despite this, some experts think further tax rises are now 'inevitable'.
Nimesh Shah, of Blick Rothenberg, said: 'Given the current state of the country's finances, and global events likely to have fully wiped out the Chancellor's fiscal headroom, it appears inevitable that income tax has to increase at the next autumn Budget.'
However, he said this was more likely to come in the form of a reversal in the Conservative government's National Insurance cuts.
'For me, a more likely 'win' for the Chancellor would be to reverse the Conservative government's National Insurance cut – citing that this measure was always unsustainable for the country's finances.'
Alternatively, the Chancellor could extend the freeze on income tax thresholds.
Rather than increasing the rates, the previous Conservative government chose to freeze income tax thresholds for years – generating billions in extra revenue by stealth as rising wages pushed workers into higher tax bands.
Laura Suter, of stockbroker AJ Bell, said: 'While Labour made an election promise not to raise taxes on working people, they have already done so by the back door by continuing with the income tax band freeze that started under the Tories.'
She added: 'The Chancellor could extend the freeze further into the future if she wanted to continue this boost to taxes – and that's likely to be a more palatable option as it doesn't strictly raise income tax rates and so doesn't break the manifesto promise.'
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What salary sacrifice changes could mean for your pension
The government has insisted recent reports indicating that it is considering changes to salary sacrifice pension schemes are "purely speculative". It comes off the back of research published by HMRC in May that suggested the government was exploring reducing the tax and national insurance advantages by changing pension contribution schemes for workers. While the research was commissioned by the Conservative government in 2023, the timing of its publication raised eyebrows because of it's proximity to Rachel Reeves's spending review on 11 June. The spending review is when Reeves will lay out all government departments' budgets for the coming years. It could also be a strong indication as to whether the government will need to announce any increase to taxes later this year in the autumn statement. Experts have told Yahoo News why the prospect of targeting salary sacrifice schemes would be so appealing for the government - and who would most likely miss out. A salary sacrifice scheme is a formal agreement between an employee and employer in which the employee agrees to reduce their gross salary in exchange for a non-cash benefit - like a bicycle through the Cycle to Work scheme - provided by the employer. In turn, as the employee pays for this through their salary, they not only pay less income tax, but their employer pays lower national insurance (NI) on the person's remaining take home-pay. As national insurance is one of the main revenue streams for the government, this means that when an employee enrols in a scheme, the Treasury misses out on the extra tax. When you use salary sacrifice for your pension, you agree to take a lower salary, and your employer pays the 'sacrificed' amount directly into your pension. Like with any other salary sacrifice, because your official salary is lower, both you and your employer pay less in NI, and you pay less income tax on your earnings. Salary sacrifice schemes are very popular, with 70% of UK pension schemes using them as the default method for contributions. If the salary sacrifice scheme was limited or cut for pensions, the government could remove or limit these tax and NI savings. For example, you and your employer might have to pay NI on the amount you sacrifice, or there could be a cap on how much salary can be sacrificed before the benefits are lost. "Salary sacrifice along with income tax relief makes it very attractive to save into a pension," Stuart Price, Partner and Actuary at Quantum Advisory told Yahoo News. "For a lower rate tax payer £1 invested only costs them 72p, and for a high rate tax payer £1 invested only costs them 58p. "If the provision of salary sacrifice is removed and hence national insurance relief is no longer provided these numbers increase to 80p for a lower rate tax payer and 60p for a higher rate tax payer," he added. By removing or scaling back the tax and National Insurance (NI) exemptions that benefit employees and employers benefit from through salary sacrifice, the government could boost its revenue. 'Salary sacrifice along with the annual allowance often appear top of the list of options when the government needs to save money," Helen Morrissey, head of retirement analysis at Hargreaves Lansdown told Yahoo News. The move would therefore be an attractive prospect for HMRC because it would generate "significant income". "I would expect that they would be in favour of the removal of salary sacrifice on pensions," John Mullaly, a group risk and healthcare consultant from actuary Cartwright Employment Awards, told Yahoo News. This may be even more significant as the government is just days away from its spending review, the process the government uses to set all departments' budgets for future years. 'The government may be tempted to turn its eye to salary sacrifice... particularly given the amount it costs in lost national insurance revenue," Martin Willis, a partner at independent consultancy Barnett Waddingham explained to Yahoo News. While the government might benefit, employees earning the least would be the hardest hit. "High earners may be insulated from any potential shift; the real impact would be on lower and moderate earners - particularly those using salary sacrifice to top up pension contributions," Waddingham said. The move could also be an additional blow for businesses after the government's hike on national insurance rates for employers in the last Budget. "Removing it now could disproportionately affect basic rate taxpayers and employers who've only just faced a rise in national insurance costs," Willis added. Morrissey echoes this. "At a time when employers are battling higher wage and NI bills, salary sacrifice might be seen as one way of reducing these costs – making changes will add an extra burden to struggling employers.' While both employees and employers benefit from salary sacrifice arrangements, Mullaly said employers "do not pocket all of the savings." "Quite often they use it to fund additional benefits to be used to attract and retain employees," he added. Additionally, if salary sacrifices adversely affect pension pots, savers could be discouraged from putting away enough into their pension — which is unwelcome news when the figure for a comfortable retirement continues to rise. According to the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association (PLSA), to live a comfortable retirement in the UK, the estimated annual retirement income needed in 2025 is around £43,100 a year. "There does seem to be a trend of focusing on increasing tax revenue at the expense of all other considerations, rather than focusing on the underlying social reasons for having things like a pension," Price said. "The result of all of this is less money will be saved by employees towards their pension. Not a great thing when as a nation we are nowhere near saving enough for our retirement." Added to this, the change in uptake could affect how and where pension funds invest their money. "Many of the largest pension funds invest in our high streets, shopping centres and other real estate," Mullaly explained. "With many high streets already under threat, any reduction in investment is only going to make the situation in this area worse." While salary sacrifice reduction may be a highly attractive prospect for the government, it is clear that it would be far from popular. The Society of Pension Professionals has already warned the government against salary sacrifice changes, writing in a statement that it would affect earners "very selectively". Added to this, there would be some serious logistical hurdles to tackle to implement it. Firstly, Willis said implementing these reforms after the new financial year has started "would likely be far from straightforward". "Currently, salary sacrifice reward structures are set by employers, so implementing changes could be very messy, especially when it comes to capturing salary decisions for new hires or changes mid-year," he told Yahoo News. "Today salary sacrifice is largely used to support improved pension saving, and is limited since the system was already tightened in 2017." A government spokesperson said: 'These claims are totally speculative. HMRC regularly commissions independent research on all aspects of the tax system, and this research was commissioned under the previous government. '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 to not raise the basic, higher or additional rates of income tax, employee national insurance or VAT."
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Dozens of MPs back campaign to revive playgrounds
More than 70 MPs are backing a campaign to revive England's playgrounds as pressure grows on the government to do more to tackle community decline to fight Reform UK. Labour MP Tom Hayes has tabled an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that would ensure playgrounds lost to development are replaced. Politics Live: Mr Hayes told Sky News it is a personal subject as he grew up in poverty, caring for two disabled parents, and without his local playground "they wouldn't have been able to afford any sort of leisure activity for me". "Talking to parents these days, with the cost of living crisis going on, they just don't have play areas on their doorstep like they used to. What they have instead is rusting swings or boarded-up playgrounds." The Bournemouth East MP said this speaks to a "wider hopelessness" that people are feeling about "littering in their streets, graffiti on their walls, potholes in their roads". "It just makes people feel like nobody really cares about their area. That's at a time when people are feeling hopeless about the possibility of change and Reform, obviously, are trying to capitalise on that." Under the last Labour government, Ed Balls and Andy Burnham launched England's first and only play strategy, which aimed to create 3,500 new play spaces across every local authority - backed by £235m of funding. It was abandoned by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition two years later and facilities have been in sharp decline since then, according to Play England which has developed the amendment Mr Hayes is tabling. The amendment would require councils in England to assess play provision and integrate "play sufficiency" into local plans and planning decisions - similar to a law that already exists in Scotland and Wales. It would also require developers to deliver and fund adequate play infrastructure, with a focus on inclusive play equipment for children with special educational needs and disabilities. Mr Hayes said this would not cost the Treasury anything and "is such a simple thing" the government can do quickly for children and young people "who have been shafted for so long". It is backed by 71 MPs from across Labour, the Conservatives, the Lib Dems and the Greens, with many supporters hopeful it could also reduce screen time Pressure on government over left-behind areas Amendments by backbench MPs are not usually agreed to but can be used to put pressure on the government, with the issue to be debated in the House of Commons this week as the planning bills enter the report stage. Mr Hayes said his playground campaign was just the start as he backed the resurrection of Sure Start centres, following calls from Rother Valley MP Jake Richards last week. Read More: There is growing momentum among Labour backbenchers who want to see the government give more of a priority to social infrastructure to deliver tangible change to communities and fend off the threat of Reform UK. MPs and policy insiders have told Sky News they are concerned Downing Street's ambition to grow GDP with long-term transport and infrastructure projects will not make a difference in places that look and feel forgotten, even if achieved. As Sky News has previously reported, several Red Wall MPs have , which has identified 613 "mission-critical" neighbourhoods in need of a cash boost to ensure people in left-behind areas can benefit from growth. The commission, chaired by Labour peer Hilary Armstrong, highlights the need to regenerate neighbourhoods with facilities like libraries, parks and community centres for voters to feel a difference. Any money for such a project will be set out in Chancellor Rachel Reeves's , when she will allocate funds for each department over the coming years. One of ICON's supporters is Blackpool South MP Chris Webb, who has also signed Mr Hayes's amendment. He told Sky News playgrounds "will make a real difference to families in Blackpool, which has the most mission-critical neighbourhoods in the country". "I'm committed to fighting for policies that benefit our community, and I'm thrilled to be working with Tom Hayes MP, the play sector and Play England to make this vision a reality." Sky News has contacted the government for comment.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Reeves public spending spree ‘costs homeowners £820 extra a year'
Rachel Reeves's public spending spree has pushed up the cost of borrowing in a move that is costing homeowners £820 a year, economists have warned. As the Chancellor prepares to unveil £300bn in new spending pledges in her upcoming review, analysts at Berenberg said households were already counting the cost of the Chancellor's borrowing binge last autumn. Andrew Wishart, an economist at Berenberg, said Ms Reeves's decision to spend more money on public services and investment meant the Bank of England was unlikely to cut interest rates again this year, extending the pain for millions of mortgage holders. While Ms Reeves has repeatedly blamed former prime minister Liz Truss for pushing up mortgage costs after the mini-Budget, Mr Wishart said her own spending blitz meant mortgage deals were unlikely to get better this year. Mr Wishart predicted average mortgage rates would 'likely stabilise at about 4.5pc, whereas they might have fallen to 4pc were the Bank able to continue to lower rates at a quarterly pace'. With every half a percentage point rise in mortgage rates adding an additional £8.3bn in mortgage interest to bills, he said this would cost the 1.8m homeowners refinancing in 2025 an average of £820 each. Mr Wishart said this would force the Bank of England to keep interest rates higher for longer. Policymakers voted to cut interest rates to 4.25pc in May. However, a June cut is looking unlikely, with higher-than expected inflation forcing traders to reassess bets on more rate cuts later this year. Investors are now betting on two more rate cuts this year. However, Mr Wishart predicted higher spending would prevent the Bank from cutting rates further. He said: 'The stance of fiscal policy is pretty loose at a time when it probably shouldn't be. We've got unemployment close to historical lows, and a government deficit of over 5pc of GDP last year. 'That is a sign the Government is injecting cash into the economy at a time [when] it is pulling in the other direction to the Bank of England. 'It is quite an important reason why demand is holding up in the early part of this year, and that is a key reason why I think the Bank is going to have to hold off rate cuts until 2026. 'That means mortgage rates aren't going to decline any further, if that is right, because the market will have to take out the cut or two that it has got in for the rest of this year.' Ms Reeves will on Wednesday set out Whitehall day-to-day and investment budgets until the next election. Labour is hoping that extra spending on health and infrastructure in Red Wall areas will arrest a surge in popularity for Reform. The Chancellor announced an average £70bn a-year increase in spending in her Budget last October in a move that will swell the size of the state to 44pc of GDP by the end of the decade. This is almost five percentage points higher than its pre-pandemic size. Ms Reeves has already set out an £87bn increase in public spending over the next two years, with details of a further £300bn between 2026-27 and 2029-30 to be set out on Wednesday. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
