Rachel Reeves to raise taxes?

On 1 August 2024, Dan Neidle of Tax Policy Policy Associates published an excellent blog of possible targets for raising taxes which would target the wealthy and those using avoidance devices.

taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/08/01/rachel-reeves-raise-22bn-of-tax/

Its being widely reported tonight as in Guardian

But has been speculated on for some time in MSM since the end of July.

I'd rather wait and see a package as a whole.

Personally I'd take a graduated rise in income tax to save NHS and Care services.

Richard Murphy had lots of suggestions in the Taxing Wealth Report which he published last Autumn.

None of which would affect most (if any) Gnetters or 'ordinary' people

taxingwealth.uk/2023/09/13/the-taxing-wealth-report-2024-recommendations-to-date-and-their-suggested-value/

Maerion

On 1 August 2024, Dan Neidle of Tax Policy Policy Associates published an excellent blog of possible targets for raising taxes which would target the wealthy and those using avoidance devices.

taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/08/01/rachel-reeves-raise-22bn-of-tax/

Thanx, interesting reading, certainly plenty of scope for raising taxes, interesting that this hasn’t already been done seeing as our public services are on the floor, but seeing as the wealthy would be targeted I suppose that explains a lot.

Wyllow3

Its being widely reported tonight as in Guardian

But has been speculated on for some time in MSM since the end of July.

I'd rather wait and see a package as a whole.

Personally I'd take a graduated rise in income tax to save NHS and Care services.

I think there would be many who feel the same but hopefully taxes can be raised by targeting those with enough wealth to afford a significant hike in what they pay.
Also our tax system is not fit for purpose is clunky and full of loop holes, closing those loop holes could raise billions.

It has been suggested many times that people should only get basic rate tax relief on pension contributions. It wouldn't surprise me if Reeves withdraws the higher rate relief for higher earners. I've always felt it unfair that higher earners are essentially receiving a higher subsidy from the Treasury.

Thanks for the taxingwealth link, MaizieD. Particularly interested in Murphy's blog about reforming Companies House ...

Its failings as a company administrator are likely to contribute to the estimated sum of more than £200 billion of fraud undertaken in the UK each year, much of it through limited companies about which literally nothing at all is known because no demand for information is ever made of them.

taxingwealth.uk/2023/10/18/taxing-wealth-report-2024-reforming-companies-house-might-raise-6-billion-of-tax-a-year/

Interesting idea - it would raise money without a tax increase - and, hopefully, result in more transparency.

The thing is that the government are talking about cutting spending which will surely reduce service levels even further? They obviously want to hurt now so they can seem more generous later in their time in government.

MaizieD

Richard Murphy had lots of suggestions in the Taxing Wealth Report which he published last Autumn.

None of which would affect most (if any) Gnetters or 'ordinary' people

taxingwealth.uk/2023/09/13/the-taxing-wealth-report-2024-recommendations-to-date-and-their-suggested-value/

Murphy is wrong, we have already had WFA withdrawn which judging by the outcry does affect a lot on this forum

We can expect a lot of cuts and tax changes that do affect the older population with even modest wealth.

David49

MaizieD

Richard Murphy had lots of suggestions in the Taxing Wealth Report which he published last Autumn.

None of which would affect most (if any) Gnetters or 'ordinary' people

taxingwealth.uk/2023/09/13/the-taxing-wealth-report-2024-recommendations-to-date-and-their-suggested-value/

Murphy is wrong, we have already had WFA withdrawn which judging by the outcry does affect a lot on this forum

We can expect a lot of cuts and tax changes that do affect the older population with even modest wealth.

Where did he say anything about removing benefits for pensioners?

Not in the least surprised!!!

More austerity, more taxes, so much for the grown ups being in control…

GG13 yes Uk has another 10 years of this government! Best pace ourselves . At least the rhetoric over the black hole can’t last indefinitely. Is Canada accepting migrants?

growstuff

It has been suggested many times that people should only get basic rate tax relief on pension contributions. It wouldn't surprise me if Reeves withdraws the higher rate relief for higher earners. I've always felt it unfair that higher earners are essentially receiving a higher subsidy from the Treasury.

Totally agree
Was just about to post along these lines....but you've done it far more succinctly than I would have !

David49

MaizieD

Richard Murphy had lots of suggestions in the Taxing Wealth Report which he published last Autumn.

None of which would affect most (if any) Gnetters or 'ordinary' people

taxingwealth.uk/2023/09/13/the-taxing-wealth-report-2024-recommendations-to-date-and-their-suggested-value/

Murphy is wrong, we have already had WFA withdrawn which judging by the outcry does affect a lot on this forum

We can expect a lot of cuts and tax changes that do affect the older population with even modest wealth.

I don't know how you work out that 'Murphy is wrong', David. Did you even look at his suggestions? There is nothing in them about withdrawing benefits of any kind.

It was me who said that none of his suggestions were likely to affect any of us or 'ordinary' people. Which is true. They are focussed on the wealthy or on absurdities such as the government paying interest on bank reserves; reserves provided in the first place by the Bank of England, which is owned by the nation. Or on the point that Maerion picked up about Companies House.

GrannyGravy13

Not in the least surprised!!!

More austerity, more taxes, so much for the grown ups being in control…

Taxes for whom? So far. most of this is speculation.

If it means some redistribution of wealth, so the inequality gap doesn't continue to grow, I'm all for it.

Growstuff I think the inequality gap is unlikely to reduce. I think it may worsen if anything but time will tell.

Murphys suggestions are fine, but to say that it’s not going to affect “ordinary” people is very wide of the mark.

I took “ordinary people” as Murphys quote, if it was yours Maisie then you are wrong

Babs03

Is suggested that Rachel Reeves will raise taxes and cut spending in the October budget.
Tbh I really don’t see what choice she has. Of course no leader of a political party will float the possibility of raising taxes during a GE campaign, is a sure fire way of losing votes so no surprise that Labour didn’t say anything about this at that time.
Thing is we all want better public services but countries with the best public services have higher taxes. Am not sure where she will cut spending, just hoping it won’t be health or social services.
In any case I wouldn’t want her job for a gold clock, whilst Tory government ministers and the PM ran up obscene expenses for private jets, with Cleverly and Cameron cashing in on this as well as Sunak, and wasted many millions on impractical projects like Rwanda etc., they ran the country into the ground.

I agree with most of what you say, and think there should be a small rise in income tax for everyone.
What I don’t agree with is that they didn’t merely stay quiet before the election on taxes for fear of losing votes they made a big thing of constantly saying there’d be no increases in taxes.
This is on record and anyone can check it, and we all heard it, I was surprised by it as I think taxes need to go up.

ronib

Growstuff I think the inequality gap is unlikely to reduce. I think it may worsen if anything but time will tell.

Why do you think that?

Oreo

Babs03

Is suggested that Rachel Reeves will raise taxes and cut spending in the October budget.
Tbh I really don’t see what choice she has. Of course no leader of a political party will float the possibility of raising taxes during a GE campaign, is a sure fire way of losing votes so no surprise that Labour didn’t say anything about this at that time.
Thing is we all want better public services but countries with the best public services have higher taxes. Am not sure where she will cut spending, just hoping it won’t be health or social services.
In any case I wouldn’t want her job for a gold clock, whilst Tory government ministers and the PM ran up obscene expenses for private jets, with Cleverly and Cameron cashing in on this as well as Sunak, and wasted many millions on impractical projects like Rwanda etc., they ran the country into the ground.

I agree with most of what you say, and think there should be a small rise in income tax for everyone.
What I don’t agree with is that they didn’t merely stay quiet before the election on taxes for fear of losing votes they made a big thing of constantly saying there’d be no increases in taxes.
This is on record and anyone can check it, and we all heard it, I was surprised by it as I think taxes need to go up.

I think there are other ways of increasing income to the Treasury rather than raising income tax.

David49

Murphys suggestions are fine, but to say that it’s not going to affect “ordinary” people is very wide of the mark.

I took “ordinary people” as Murphys quote, if it was yours Maisie then you are wrong

What do you mean by ordinary people? Most people on GN seem to think they're "ordinary", when it's quite clear from some of their posts that they're not.

Growstuff for the simple reason that billionaires are highly mobile and will relocate. The Uk government can’t make billionaires stay here. It’s a supranational class of people I guess.

ronib

Growstuff for the simple reason that billionaires are highly mobile and will relocate. The Uk government can’t make billionaires stay here. It’s a supranational class of people I guess.

So they won't be the UK's concern any more. Good riddance to them. I'm more concerned about the equality of the people who do live in the UK.