Reeves eyes up to £40bn in tax rises and spending cuts in Budget
Rachel Reeves is looking to make up to £40 billion of tax rises and spending cuts in this month’s Budget as the Government seeks to avoid a return to austerity, it is understood.
The Chancellor told ministers in a Cabinet meeting on Monday that plans to fill the “£22 billion black hole” she has repeatedly cited in the UK’s finances will be enough only to “keep public services standing still”.
The Treasury is understood to have identified a far larger £40 billion funding gap which Ms Reeves will seek to plug to protect key departments from real-terms cuts and put the economy on a firmer footing.
Sir Keir Starmer has refused to rule out an increase in employers’ national insurance contributions at the Budget but insisted Labour would keep its promise not to raise taxes on “working people”.
He has repeatedly warned of “tough decisions” to be made when Ms Reeves sets out the plans on October 30.
Vow
Labour promised in its manifesto not to raise taxes on “working people”, including income tax, VAT and national insurance, and the Chancellor has vowed there will be no return to austerity under the new administration.
But the Government has faced questions on whether the commitment not to raise national insurance covered employers’ contributions as well as those by employees.
Businesses have warned that raising their contributions would operate as a “tax on jobs”.
Experts have argued that ministers need to find £20 billion to avoid cuts to so-called “unprotected” departments pencilled in by their Conservative predecessors, along with billions more to prevent a sharp fall in investment spending.
Some of that could come from changing the measure the Government uses to calculate debt, but economists have suggested that some tax rises are all but inevitable to prevent a squeeze on day-to-day spending.
Income tax
Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) chief Paul Johnson said that £40 billion worth of hikes alone would be “extraordinary” and that eventually the Government would need to target income tax if it went down this route.
“If we get tax rises on that scale, that really will be extraordinary – I mean, unprecedented,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.
“Forty billion pounds is a big number, you can get there relatively easily actually in terms of the scale of additional spending that will be required down the line.
“Some of that can be covered by slight changes in the fiscal rules, some of that will be covered by some of the tax rises the party is already intending.”
But he added that a “significant” amount would still be left over even after these measures, telling the show: “If they’re looking for £20 or £30 billion of tax rises, in the end, they will have no choice but to do something with income tax.”
It comes as new figures released on Wednesday showed inflation dropped below the Bank of England target rate last month for the first time since April 2021.
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) said Consumer Prices Index (CPI) inflation fell to 1.7% in September, from 2.2% in August.
Bills
Mr Johnson said there was “good and bad news” for the Government in the latest figures.
While the cost of the benefits bill will be lower than it would have been had inflation climbed, less revenue will be raised through fiscal drag – the process by which frozen tax thresholds pull people into paying a higher rate.
A Treasury spokesperson said: “We do not comment on speculation around tax changes outside of fiscal events.”
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.
One slogan at a time from the ‘Village People’…
In the music business we called them ‘liggers’, they lived on the free food and booze we used to hand out regularly at record company expense…it follows that the houses of parliament runs along the same lines…
If increasing employer’s NI upsets the manifesto watchers simply rename it to the Jobs Tax. Even better, link it to regional GDP so employers of staff living in wealthier regions pay more, and zero rate it in the least well off regions.