Latest news with #RobertColvile
Daily Mail
a day ago
- Business
- Daily Mail
Reeves urged to rule out pensions tax raid amid mounting concern over how she will pay for her lavish spending
Rachel Reeves was last night urged to rule out a tax raid on pensions. The Chancellor is expected to launch a round of tax rises in a Budget this autumn to help fill a black hole in finances as she pours money into the public sector. That would follow a £40billion tax hike in the last Budget in October. 'More tax increases are inevitable, not just in the autumn but for years to come,' said Robert Colvile, director of the Centre for Policy Studies. It is feared this could involve a raid on retirement pots, including cutting the tax-free lump sum or reliefs on the contributions of higher earners. Savers can withdraw up to 25 per cent of their pots tax-free at 55 – up to a maximum of £268,275. Pensions grab: The Chancellor is widely expected to launch a fresh round of tax rises in a Budget this autumn as she pours money into the public sector Workers also can save up to £60,000 a year tax-free, equating to relief of 20 per cent for basic-rate taxpayers and 40 per cent or 45 per cent for those in the higher and additional income tax brackets. And experts warned of reductions in the annual allowance or the return of the lifetime allowance while salary sacrifice could also be abolished. Rumours of an attack on the lump sum proved particularly damaging ahead of Labour's Budget last autumn as savers withdrew cash from their pension pots. Investment firm AJ Bell is now calling on the Chancellor to rule out any raid on retirement savings by bringing in a pensions tax lock to provide certainty. 'This was the Chancellor's last foray into the limelight before the Budget and attention will now turn to what tax rises might be in the post,' said Laith Khalaf, head of investment analysis at AJ Bell. 'Amid growing fiscal pressure, there's a real risk that pensions tax reform speculation, especially around tax-free cash and tax relief, will return to the headlines. 'Rather than let uncertainty rattle savers, the Chancellor should introduce a pensions tax lock, ruling out changes to tax-free cash or pension tax relief for the rest of this Parliament. 'A commitment would offer investors the confidence to plan for the long term and give momentum to the retail investing revolution Rachel Reeves wants.' Tomm Adams, a partner at Blick Rothenberg, said: 'Reeves has been suspiciously quiet on the pensions front. But with an expensive funding plan, I'm not alone in asking: 'Where's the money coming from?' 'Basic arithmetic suggests that autumn tax rises look inevitable. Unfortunately, pensions tax relief is the perfect target.'
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Don't blame privatisation for our water crisis
There are few things as perfectly emblematic of the United Kingdom's endemic governance crisis than the fact that an island nation with almost 20,000 miles of coastline and 800-to-1200mm average rainfall a year has broadly the same attitude to water as Dune's Fremen. Water companies are saying that they might need to 'restrict usage' as the combination of a changing climate and a rapidly-expanding population put mounting pressure on Britain's water resources. But whilst those things might be the proximate cause, the true root of the problem is our usual stubborn resistance to building things – or in this case, to digging some holes in the ground. Our newest reservoir, Carsington, was opened over three decades ago. Since then, our population has grown by over ten million people; in that same time, our reservoir capacity has not increased by so much as a drop. Who's to blame? The water companies are easy targets; the Daily Telegraph's own report refers to 'underinvestment in water reservoirs since privatisation' as the root of the problem. The real picture, however, is quite different. As Robert Colvile of the Centre for Policy Studies has shown, privatisation actually delivered consistently higher investment in water infrastructure than under the nationalised regime, to the extent that we actually invest more in 'repairing and upgrading' our water infrastructure than any European nation. Why is this? Because rather than having to rely on the Treasury deciding to make unglamorous, long-term investments, water companies are obliged to heavily reinvest revenue in their networks. If you want something properly funded, make sure it isn't competing with pensions and the NHS for cash every year. Privatisation has also boosted productivity by 64 per cent, according to a report by Frontier Economics, which translates to lower bills. Of course, politicians might have held them even lower had the state retained direct control – but that would have meant less revenue and less investment. No, the real culprit is planning. Abingdon Reservoir, which when complete will hold 150 million cubic metres of water, was first proposed by Thames Water almost two decades ago. Yet unlike in the golden age of British infrastructure, private companies cannot simply buy land and build things we need. Time and again, the reservoir has been rejected, with a broad swath of England subject to avoidable droughts year after year just to avoid upsetting Vale of White Horse District Council. Ah, but what about leaks? Surely, we wouldn't need all these reservoirs (read: perfectly pleasant lakes) if we could only fix the leaks? This line is peddled often by local campaigners trying to stop a reservoir, but it is nonsense. First, it is worth pointing out that the sector's performance on leaks has improved since privatisation; just since 2019, when Ofwat ditched the previous 'sustainable economic level of leakage' (SELL) regime, we have seen a double-digit reduction. The ideal amount of water lost to leaks would obviously be zero. But that is an impossible – or at least, ruinously expensive – target. Much of Britain's water infrastructure is Victorian; does anybody seriously think it's plausible to dig up and replace every pipe in the nation? We don't even know exactly where they all are. Moreover, the Victorians were not as exercised as we about leaks for a sensible reason: unlike oil, sewage, or other pollutants, mains water leaks don't damage anything. The water simply returns to the water table. Fixating on leaks is sensible if you're in a water-scarce environment; in the UK, which would have abundant water if it would only dig some holes to store it in, it is a sign of madness. 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.
Telegraph
20-05-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
Don't blame privatisation for our water crisis
There are few things as perfectly emblematic of the United Kingdom's endemic governance crisis than the fact that an island nation with almost 20,000 miles of coastline and 800-to-1200mm average rainfall a year has broadly the same attitude to water as Dune 's Fremen. Water companies are saying that they might need to 'restrict usage' as the combination of a changing climate and a rapidly-expanding population put mounting pressure on Britain's water resources. But whilst those things might be the proximate cause, the true root of the problem is our usual stubborn resistance to building things – or in this case, to digging some holes in the ground. Our newest reservoir, Carsington, was opened over three decades ago. Since then, our population has grown by over ten million people; in that same time, our reservoir capacity has not increased by so much as a drop. Who's to blame? The water companies are easy targets; the Daily Telegraph 's own report refers to 'underinvestment in water reservoirs since privatisation' as the root of the problem. The real picture, however, is quite different. As Robert Colvile of the Centre for Policy Studies has shown, privatisation actually delivered consistently higher investment in water infrastructure than under the nationalised regime, to the extent that we actually invest more in 'repairing and upgrading' our water infrastructure than any European nation. Why is this? Because rather than having to rely on the Treasury deciding to make unglamorous, long-term investments, water companies are obliged to heavily reinvest revenue in their networks. If you want something properly funded, make sure it isn't competing with pensions and the NHS for cash every year. Privatisation has also boosted productivity by 64 per cent, according to a report by Frontier Economics, which translates to lower bills. Of course, politicians might have held them even lower had the state retained direct control – but that would have meant less revenue and less investment. No, the real culprit is planning. Abingdon Reservoir, which when complete will hold 150 million cubic metres of water, was first proposed by Thames Water almost two decades ago. Yet unlike in the golden age of British infrastructure, private companies cannot simply buy land and build things we need. Time and again, the reservoir has been rejected, with a broad swath of England subject to avoidable droughts year after year just to avoid upsetting Vale of White Horse District Council. Ah, but what about leaks? Surely, we wouldn't need all these reservoirs (read: perfectly pleasant lakes) if we could only fix the leaks? This line is peddled often by local campaigners trying to stop a reservoir, but it is nonsense. First, it is worth pointing out that the sector's performance on leaks has improved since privatisation; just since 2019, when Ofwat ditched the previous 'sustainable economic level of leakage' (SELL) regime, we have seen a double-digit reduction. The ideal amount of water lost to leaks would obviously be zero. But that is an impossible – or at least, ruinously expensive – target. Much of Britain's water infrastructure is Victorian; does anybody seriously think it's plausible to dig up and replace every pipe in the nation? We don't even know exactly where they all are. Moreover, the Victorians were not as exercised as we about leaks for a sensible reason: unlike oil, sewage, or other pollutants, mains water leaks don't damage anything. The water simply returns to the water table. Fixating on leaks is sensible if you're in a water-scarce environment; in the UK, which would have abundant water if it would only dig some holes to store it in, it is a sign of madness.
Yahoo
05-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Millions to get £1,400 pay rise in April with inflation-busting boost
More than three million workers across the UK are set to get a bumper pay rise in April as new wage rates for the year come into effect. For over-21s, the government has confirmed that the National Living Wage is set to rise to £12.21, up 6.7 per cent from £11.44. For the average full-time worker, this will mean a pay rise of £1,400 a year. The National Minimum Wage – for those aged 18 to 20 – will also be rising, reaching £10 an hour for the first time. This is a record increase of 16 per cent, increasing wages for this group by £2,500 a year. The new Labour government has said it plans to eventually remove 'discriminatory age bands,' ensuring all adults are paid the same minimum wage. Chancellor Rachel Reeves said: 'This Government promised a genuine living wage for working people that will support people with the cost of living, creating a workforce that is fit and ready to help us deliver number one mission to growth the economy.' 'This pay boost for millions of workers is a significant step towards delivering on that promise.' For apprentices and workers aged under 18, the minimum wage will be increasing from £6.40 to £7.55. The rates are calculated each year by the Low Pay Commission (LPC), an expert panel which makes its recommendations to the government. Labour widened the remit of the commission this year, asking its members to take the cost of living into account for the first time. Presenting its latest report to Parliament, the LPC explained: 'We were asked to ensure that the NLW did not fall below two-thirds of median hourly earnings; to take account of the cost of living, including inflation to March 2026; and to take account of the impacts on businesses and the wider economy. 'The focus on living costs is new for our remit and is part of the new Government's plans to make work pay and deliver a genuine living wage.' However, some business leaders have responded negatively to Labour's decision to boost the minimum wage, alongside other measures introduced in the Budget. Robert Colvile, director at the Centre for Policy Studies, said in January: 'it was clear from the moment of the Budget that taxing jobs and work would damage the economy. 'And as this analysis shows, the changes to employer's National Insurance and the increases in the minimum wage make it disproportionately more expensive to employ those at the lower end of the wage scale.'
The Independent
05-02-2025
- Business
- The Independent
Millions to get £1,400 pay rise in April with inflation-busting boost
More than three million workers across the UK are set to get a bumper pay rise in April as new wage rates for the year come into effect. For over-21s, the government has confirmed that the National Living Wage is set to rise to £12.21, up 6.7 per cent from £11.44. For the average full-time worker, this will mean a pay rise of £1,400 a year. The National Minimum Wage – for those aged 18 to 20 – will also be rising, reaching £10 an hour for the first time. This is a record increase of 16 per cent, increasing wages for this group by £2,500 a year. The new Labour government has said it plans to eventually remove 'discriminatory age bands,' ensuring all adults are paid the same minimum wage. Chancellor Rachel Reeves said: 'This Government promised a genuine living wage for working people that will support people with the cost of living, creating a workforce that is fit and ready to help us deliver number one mission to growth the economy.' 'This pay boost for millions of workers is a significant step towards delivering on that promise.' For apprentices and workers aged under 18, the minimum wage will be increasing from £6.40 to £7.55. The rates are calculated each year by the Low Pay Commission (LPC), an expert panel which makes its recommendations to the government. Labour widened the remit of the commission this year, asking its members to take the cost of living into account for the first time. Presenting its latest report to Parliament, the LPC explained: 'We were asked to ensure that the NLW did not fall below two-thirds of median hourly earnings; to take account of the cost of living, including inflation to March 2026; and to take account of the impacts on businesses and the wider economy. 'The focus on living costs is new for our remit and is part of the new Government's plans to make work pay and deliver a genuine living wage.' However, some business leaders have responded negatively to Labour's decision to boost the minimum wage, alongside other measures introduced in the Budget. Robert Colvile, director at the Centre for Policy Studies, said in January: 'it was clear from the moment of the Budget that taxing jobs and work would damage the economy. 'And as this analysis shows, the changes to employer's National Insurance and the increases in the minimum wage make it disproportionately more expensive to employ those at the lower end of the wage scale.'
