More than seven million people estimated to be higher rate taxpayers in 2025-26
More than seven million people are liable for higher rate income tax, marking a jump of nearly two-fifths compared with 2022-23, according to HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) figures.
There are a projected 7.08 million higher rate income tax payers in tax year 2025-26, the revenue body said.
This is up from 5.10 million people who were in this bracket in 2022-23.
It also marks a 2.65 million increase compared with the 4.43 million higher rate income tax payers in 2021-22.
There are also a projected 1.23 million additional rate income tax payers in 2025-26, compared with around 570,000 in 2022-23 and 520,000 in 2021-22.
Some 39.10 million people are projected to be income tax payers in 2025-26, up from 34.50 million income tax payers in tax year 2022-23 and 33.00 million in 2021-22.
Frozen tax thresholds have pushed people into higher brackets as their pay has increased.
Sarah Coles, head of personal finance, Hargreaves Lansdown said: 'Fiscal drag has hauled over six million more people into paying income tax, and 3.36 million more into paying higher or additional rate tax.
'We've had to hand over an extra £89 billion in income tax this year – compared to 2021-22 – as a result.
'It has had a devastating impact on the tax we pay on our earnings, but that's not the end of it, because it also takes a huge chunk out of our savings and investments. It reveals just how much damage is being done to our finances by this horrible stealth tax – and there's plenty more to come.
'Income tax thresholds are set to stay until 2028, but as the debate around the Government finances intensifies, the risk that the freeze remains for even longer can't be ruled out.'
Neela Chauhan, a partner at UHY Hacker Young said: 'Though it might seem equitable for higher earners to be paying more tax, there are real concerns over the impacts of placing an ever higher tax burden on high earners.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
16 minutes ago
- Reuters
Shell and Equinor name their UK joint venture Adura
LONDON, June 26 (Reuters) - Shell's (SHEL.L), opens new tab and Equinor's ( opens new tab British joint venture, set to become the biggest oil and gas producer in the UK North Sea, will be named Adura, the companies said on Thursday. The joint venture was formed in December and is expected to increase production from around 140,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day this year, comparable with UK producer Harbour (HBR.L), opens new tab, to over 200,000 boed in the next five years. Equinor brings tax savings to Adura while Shell's larger oil and gas production offers the venture higher cash flow as it develops new fields, including the Rosebank oil project, which has become a lightning rod for climate activists in Britain. The name is a combination of Aberdeen, the centre of Britain's oil industry, and the word durability, the companies said. Shell and Equinor each hold 50% in Adura, which is expected to launch by the end of this year pending regulatory approvals.
The Independent
22 minutes ago
- The Independent
Swinney: Reasonable for ex-Dundee University principal to return £150,000 payout
First Minister John Swinney has said it would be 'reasonable' for a former principal of the cash-strapped University of Dundee to return a £150,000 payment he received when he stepped down. Professor Iain Gillespie told MSPs on Thursday it was not in his 'thought process' to hand back the cash, although he accepted the 'buck stops with me' for the university's difficulties. He stepped down from his post at the university – which is looking to cut hundreds of posts as it tries to deal with a £35 million deficit – in December. He told Holyrood's Education Committee, which is examining the difficulties faced by the institution, that the university had a 'contractual obligation' to pay him the cash. Prof Gillespie insisted it was 'not in my thought process to repay a contractual obligation to me for my work at the university' – although he added later he would 'reflect' on the matter. Mr Swinney however later insisted: 'I think that would be the right thing to do because the University of Dundee is facing an acute challenge.' A report into the situation at Dundee by former Glasgow Caledonian University principal Professor Pamela Gillies last week heavily criticised Prof Gillespie. Asked if Prof Gillespie should give back the money, the First Minister said: 'Given the awfulness of the Gillies review of the handling of the finances of the University of Dundee, I think that would be a reasonable thing to do.' His comments came after Education Committee convener Douglas Ross branded Prof Gillespie a 'coward' and accused him of having 'created this mess and walked away into the sunset'. Pressing the former principal over his time in charge, Mr Ross asked him if he was 'incompetent or corrupt' – with him replying he was 'certainly not corrupt' so he would 'have to choose incompetent'. Prof Gillespie began his evidence to the committee with a 'heartfelt apology' to staff and students at Dundee – which is to receive an additional £40 million from the Scottish Government to help its financial situation. 'Let me start off with an apology to the staff and students,' he told MSPs. 'I think staff and students deserve better than they have had with the management and the governance of the University of Dundee over quite some time, but particularly over the period of 2024. 'It's a heartfelt apology for a university that I love, and a city that I hugely respect. 'I accept the buck stops with me. That is why at the end of last year I left.' Mr Ross said the Gillies report showed Prof Gillespie had 'dangerous over self-confidence and complacency', and an 'overbearing leadership style'. Prof Gillespie said that description was 'not something I recognise' – although he later told how a complaint had been made against him in a previous job at the Natural Environment Research Council about his 'overbearing behaviour'. Prof Gillespie stepped down as principal at the University of Dundee in December, recalling this happened after others at the institution told him they had 'no confidence' in his leadership. He told MSPs it was 'possible' he had then resigned by text – though he said he may instead have sent an email confirming his decision. Mr Ross told him: 'The only thing I thought about you was you are a coward. 'You couldn't go back to the university and face the staff who were losing their jobs, face the students whose studies were so badly disrupted. 'You just created this mess and walked away into the sunset.' Challenging him on the payout, Mr Ross told Prof Gillespie he had been given 'over £150,000 to walk away from a university you almost destroyed'. He asked the former principal: 'At any point have you considered paying that money back?' Prof Gillespie said the university had a 'contractual obligation' to pay him the money. While he said he took 'overall management responsibility for what happened at the University of Dundee', he told Mr Ross he would 'push back' against the claim that he 'almost destroyed it'. Liberal Democrat MSP Willie Rennie also pressed for Prof Gillespie to give back the money. He told the former principal: 'To hold on to that just seems astonishing with the pain other people are feeling. 'I just genuinely want you to think about that, because I think it would send an important message. 'It wouldn't repair the damage but it would send an important message.' Conservative MSP Miles Briggs said giving back the money could be a way for Prof Gillespie to 'send a message to students, to the staff who are left at Dundee, that you understand your role in this saga'. The former principal told him: 'You are one of several members of the committee who have suggested that and I will reflect on that.' Prof Gillespie also hit back at claims from former Holyrood minister Wendy Alexander, who was vice-principal international at the university for almost a decade. In a submission to the committee, Baroness Alexander had said she was 'frozen out' and then 'asked to leave' her post after raising concerns about university finances. Prof Gillespie insisted he did 'not want to get into a slagging match about people's characters', he told MSPs: 'Wendy's performance in terms of delivering student numbers wasn't what we needed it to be.'
The Independent
23 minutes ago
- The Independent
No 10 fails to rule out tax rises to pay for Starmer's welfare reform climbdown
Downing Street has failed to rule out tax rises to pay for a potential U-turn on Sir Keir Starmer's £5bn welfare reform as the prime minister remains locked in crisis talks to stave off a Labour rebellion. Sir Keir is considering concessions in a bid to save his benefit cuts after more than 120 Labour MPs signed an amendment that would effectively kill them off. But there are growing questions over how a climbdown would be funded. Asked whether the government accepts it would be forced to hike taxes, the prime minister's official spokesperson said ministers wanted to get the changes 'right', adding that the chancellor would take tax decisions 'in the round in the future'. The row comes as top economists warned that failing to pass the reforms would wipe out the chancellor's financial headroom ahead of her Budget this autumn, meaning hike taxes or cuts to spending elsewhere would be needed to plug a black hole. Sir Keir doubled down on the need for the reforms on Thursday, warning benefits claimants were 'failed every single day' by a 'broken system' but admitted Labour MPs want to see 'reform implemented with Labour values of fairness'. However, rebels told The Independent that any concessions would have to be wide-ranging if they were to be accepted. Currently, the plans set to be voted on on Tuesday restrict eligibility for Personal Independence Payments (PIP), the main disability payment in England, and limit the sickness-related element of universal credit (UC). The government hopes the changes will get more people back into work and save up to £5bn a year. Existing claimants will be given a 13-week phase-out period of financial support, a move which had been seen as a bid to head off opposition by softening the impact of the changes, before this week's revolt erupted. The rebellion comes at a time when Labour MPs are growing increasingly critical of the prime minister's attendance in the Commons, with him having voted less in his first year so far than any of his predecessors up to Sir Tony Blair - while forcing his backbenchers into the Commons to take part in tough votes. Labour MP Rachael Maskell, formerly a member of the Commons Health and Social Care committee, told The Independent the government would have to agree to a multitude of changes if they were to win back support. She said: '[ministers would need to] ... agree a consultation with disabled people, they would need to end cuts to PIP without first replacing this with a fairer system and they would need to not cut Universal Credit, as this still leaves disabled people worse off, as they have significantly higher living costs. Scope has evaluated this to be over £1,000 a month.' Another Labour MP said the only solution the government could offer was to pull the bill in its entirety, and warned that MPs were unlikely to accept much less. "I'm not going to support anything that will put disabled people into hardship,' they said. 'The government have just not been listening. It didn't need to get this far and the fact that it has is just pretty tin-eared to be honest. 'No 10 sees MPs as irritants and fodder. The disrespect that comes out of there... We're all working hard and this is how they treat us. It goes back to the point about how arrogant and out of touch and arrogant they are." Another Labour MP said parts of the plans were 'unacceptable' and called for 'investment first', to get people access to mental health professionals or off UC and into work, before the cuts were implemented. Meanwhile, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) think tank warned that without passing the reforms, Chancellor Rachel Reeves would be forced to raise taxes or cut other spending to meet her self-imposed borrowing rules. Senior economist Ben Caswell said: 'More considered policy could help reduce political churn and the associated economic cost, particularly when consumer and business confidence is already low.' But Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar was optimistic the welfare bill would look different by Tuesday's vote, as a third of all Scottish Labour MPs are backing the rebel amendment. Mr Sarwar told the Holyrood Sources podcast: "The bill's not going to look the same... Legitimate concerns should be addressed... We have to support the principle of the reform." Earlier, trade minister Douglas Alexander claimed that both ministers and the rebels agree that 'welfare needs reform and that the system is broken' and that the disagreement was over the 'implementation to those principles'. Asked about concessions, the deputy prime minister, Angela Rayner, sought to reassure backbenchers that they would not be expected to betray Labour's traditional values. "I haven't changed my Labour values and we're not expecting our benches to do anything that isn't in check with them,' she said in an interview on ITV's Peston programme. "What we want to do is support people, and that is the crucial bit around these reforms of what Labour are trying to achieve, and we're discussing that with our MPs."
