Support our Nation today - please donate here
Feature

Fact check: What has Labour pledged on income tax?

22 Nov 2025 5 minute read
Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves during a visit to Rolls Royce at Inchinnan, Renfrewshire. Image: Jane Barlow/PA Wire

Full Fact via PA

This fact check has been compiled by Full Fact, the UK’s largest fact-checking charity working to find, expose and counter the harms of bad information.

Amid reports that the Government may be planning to extend the freeze on income tax thresholds in the Budget, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has claimed that doing so would be a breach of Labour’s manifesto.

Mrs Badenoch repeatedly raised the issue at Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday, asking Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to “confirm today that he will not break another promise by freezing income tax thresholds”.

It follows weeks of speculation about what income tax measures may be set out in the Budget. Last month it was widely reported that Chancellor Rachel Reeves was considering raising the headline rates of income tax, though Government sources have since been reported as saying this is no longer on the cards.

While we do not know for certain what income tax changes may be set out in next week’s Budget, Full Fact has taken a close look at what the Government has pledged on income tax.

What did Labour’s manifesto say about income tax?

Labour’s 2024 election manifesto said: “Labour will not increase taxes on working people, which is why we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT.”

The wording of this pledge has been closely scrutinised and its meaning disputed, particularly with regards to the commitment on national insurance. After the Government increased employers’ national insurance contributions in the 2024 budget, some argued this breached the manifesto commitment, though Labour argued it did not, claiming its pledge to “not increase National Insurance” applied to “working people” but not employers.

The commitment on income tax has not yet been disputed in quite the same way, but the way it is worded is not entirely unambiguous. As Full Fact’s Government Tracker explains, the pledge clearly rules out increasing income tax “rates”, for “working people” at least, but does not explicitly refer to the thresholds at which income tax rates apply.

What has the Government said about income tax rates?

The Government typically does not confirm details of Budget measures ahead of time, but until a few days ago various media reports had suggested that the Chancellor was considering increasing the headline rates of income tax. This would be a clear breach of Labour’s manifesto commitments – a point the party itself seemed to accept.

However, last week it was reported that the Government had reversed plans to increase income tax rates, after receiving forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility which suggested a smaller-than-expected gap between the Government’s spending plans and forecast revenue.

What about threshold freezes?

It is now being suggested that Ms Reeves will instead extend the freeze on income tax thresholds (though some reports have also suggested she might lower them instead, and others have questioned whether personal tax thresholds more generally might be affected).

Personal tax thresholds are the amount a person can earn before they start paying a certain rate of income tax or national insurance contributions (NICs).

These thresholds have been mostly frozen since April 2022, under decisions taken by the previous Conservative government.

Freezing personal tax thresholds means that as wages increase over time, more people will begin paying tax, or paying tax at a higher rate, than otherwise would have done had thresholds continued to increase in line with inflation. This is known as fiscal drag.

Income tax and NICs threshold freezes are currently set to end in April 2028. However it has been widely speculated that at least some of these threshold freezes, in particular those for income tax, will be extended for a further two years in the upcoming Budget.

As set out above, Labour’s manifesto refers to income tax “rates” and makes no specific mention of the thresholds.

But crucially Ms Reeves herself has appeared to link the manifesto commitment to the thresholds, in part of her 2024 budget speech which has been widely quoted in recent days, including by Mrs Badenoch at PMQs.

In her 2024 budget speech, the Chancellor said: “I have come to the conclusion that extending the threshold freeze would hurt working people. It would take more money out of their payslips.

“I am keeping every single promise on tax that I made in our manifesto, so there will be no extension of the freeze in income tax and national insurance thresholds beyond the decisions made by the previous government.”

So while it is not necessarily clear that extending threshold freezes would breach the letter of Labour’s manifesto commitments, Ms Reeves herself has appeared to suggest a link.

Manifesto commitments 

We asked the Labour Party this week whether Ms Reeves’ comments in her 2024 budget speech mean she believes that extending the freeze on income tax thresholds would breach Labour’s manifesto commitments on tax. At the time of writing, we have not received a reply.

Meanwhile reports that thresholds might be lowered have since been downplayed by the Treasury. But were thresholds to be lowered, Labour’s manifesto commitment could face even greater scrutiny, because while the headline rates of income tax might not change, a large number of individuals would start paying more income tax without their wages having increased.

A Treasury spokesperson told Full Fact: “We do not comment on speculation around changes to tax outside of fiscal events. The Chancellor will deliver a Budget that takes the fair choices to build strong foundations to secure Britain’s future.”


Support our Nation today

For the price of a cup of coffee a month you can help us create an independent, not-for-profit, national news service for the people of Wales, by the people of Wales.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

11 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
David Hughes
David Hughes
12 days ago

Tax the Billionaires,that,s where the answer lies,and stop this cras unfairness imposed on so many people.

Colin
Colin
12 days ago
Reply to  David Hughes

We can tax the millionaires more – especially the 25% of retirees – but the billionaires will move. That’s why we need global cooperation so there’s nowhere except rogue states for them to move to. And that’s why they’re working hard to prevent global cooperation such as bankrolling Brexit.

Smae
Smae
11 days ago
Reply to  Colin

Myth #1: The Billionaires will move It actually hardly ever happens at least not for this reason. There are already destinations with cheaper tax regimes… much cheaper tax regimes. If they were going to move, they would have already. Fact #1: Billionaires also think they should be paying more tax. Most billionaires have a team of accountants to keep their money growing… but what to do with all that money? There are only so many properties to buy, delicious food to eat and experiences to have. They don’t turn to charity out of the goodness of their hearts, they do… Read more »

Colin
Colin
11 days ago
Reply to  Smae

There are only 150 billionaires in the UK. How do you imagine 150 people can fund a transformation of public services?

Smae
Smae
11 days ago
Reply to  Colin

The key is in the name… Billionaire. They have much more disposable income than the rest of us. 82 of them alone hold 312bn of wealth… and that’s the ones we actually know about. The UK itself barely scrape is 1tn a year. I am quite sure (and they are quite sure) that if their income was taxed at 60-70%, they wouldn’t even notice it. Why? Because their shoulders are so broad they’d put Atlas to shame. Where as if you taxed me and you 70%… we’d not be heating our home this winter. It’s about time they chipped in… Read more »

Colin
Colin
10 days ago
Reply to  Smae

And 2% of £312bn pays for 7 days of social security spending. It’s not a panacea.

But ask yourself this. If you were sitting on £1bn in wealth, would you move to Monaco to save £20m per year?

I’m not totally against the idea of a wealth tax but it shouldn’t single out a small group. If everyone sitting on £1m or more paid 2% annually the sums raised would be huge and the billionaires wouldn’t blink because – while they’d be paying it too – they wouldn’t feel victimised.

Rueben Wynberg
Rueben Wynberg
12 days ago

People who voted for these clowns need to stand in the corner with their hands on their heads for life…

Colin
Colin
11 days ago
Reply to  Rueben Wynberg

The corner is occupied by Johnson voters.

Colin
Colin
11 days ago

If income tax is raised, offsetting this for working people by reducing NI won’t be visible enough to fly. But raising the personal allowance will help those who need it the most, including the poorest pensioners. They may not be working people but “radicalised boomers” pulled into income tax are a real threat to national security so throwing them some red meat is unavoidable.

J Jones
J Jones
11 days ago

Fact check: The loony left forcing the floodgates open for unlimited benefit handouts this year now force us to have higher taxes in the budget to pay for it. Demanding money from others simply because they have more money is the politics of envy, it stifles ambition and forces so many to switch countries. Whether it’s gas engineers who hit their £50k tax threshold by Christmas and head off to Thailand for a couple of months, or those who run larger businesses who fully relocate for another country to enjoy the creation of employment and the taxes they pay. Tax… Read more »

Smae
Smae
10 days ago
Reply to  J Jones

I don’t agree with everything you’re saying here but I do agree with some of the basic points. People who don’t actually do anything to earn their money, i.e. people who shift numbers on a spreadsheet and suddenly their bank account goes up $50tn… should be taxed at least equivalently to income tax. I’m also not a particular fan of the cliff edges… 20% is four times as steep as the 5% for the additional rate (you’d think it’d be the other way around). A more gradual series of bands I think would be better for people. The problem here… Read more »

Our Supporters

All information provided to Nation.Cymru will be handled sensitively and within the boundaries of the Data Protection Act 2018.