Reeves potrebbe raccogliere £ 21 miliardi con 8 riforme fiscali, afferma Demo Think Tank
https://www.thetimes.com/business-money/economics/article/reeves-could-raise-21bn-with-8-tax-reforms-says-demos-think-tank-lqq27ls63
di BestButtons
Reeves potrebbe raccogliere £ 21 miliardi con 8 riforme fiscali, afferma Demo Think Tank
https://www.thetimes.com/business-money/economics/article/reeves-could-raise-21bn-with-8-tax-reforms-says-demos-think-tank-lqq27ls63
di BestButtons
14 commenti
That’s a lot of taxes to raise with a potential boatload of unintended consequences for what is really not a large amount of money.
Article contents:
**The recommendations would allow the chancellor to avoid breaking a Labour manifesto pledge on taxation, the cross-party organisation says**
*Jack Barnett, Economics Correspondent, September 28 2025, The Times*
Rachel Reeves should increase taxes on landlords and homes worth more than £2 million and force wealthy investors who relocate from the UK to pay a levy on profits made while they lived in the country, a cross-party think tank has urged.
The chancellor could raise £21 billion with eight reforms to the tax system, including introducing an “exit tax” on investors that leave the UK, subjecting landlords’ rental income to national insurance and forcing people who inherit assets to pay capital gains tax on the change in value since they were bought rather than since the date of death.
The recommendations, put forward by Demos, would enable Reeves to avoid breaking a Labour manifesto pledge of not raising the main rates of VAT, income tax and individual national insurance contributions while still generating substantial income for the Treasury.
Demos argued that the changes would make the tax system fairer by reducing the tax burden on people working salaried jobs, remove tax advantages for people earning income via capital gains and stop people receiving tax reliefs when they sell inherited assets, such as homes.
Polling by Opinium carried out on behalf of Demos in April found that supporters of all the main political parties were strongly supportive of the tax reforms, particularly after they were explained the details of their implementation.
A net support rate of 39 per cent of Reform UK voters would back an exit tax and about 40 per cent favoured an additional council tax levy on homes valued at more than £2 million.
The polling also found that Reeves could face a public backlash if she tried to balance the books at the budget on November 26 with spending cuts, indicated by a net disapproval rating for cuts to investment, the NHS and welfare expenditure.
Demos said Reeves could yield more than £3 billion by increasing taxes on gambling companies, a proposal also urged by the Institute for Public Policy Research, a left-leaning think-tank close to the government.
Increasing the general betting duty to 25 per cent from 15 per cent, excluding horse racing bets, and the remote gaming duty and machine games duty to 50 per cent would “discourage gambling, reducing associated health problems, social issues and crime”, Demos claimed.
It said the tax system would be much more reliable at generating revenues were its suite of policy recommendations enacted by the chancellor.
Dan Goss, lead researcher at Demos and author of the report, said: “The public can get behind tax rises if designed with their priorities in mind. The pursuit of a fairer tax system is a vital step towards fixing the fraying social contract between citizen and state.”
Reeves is expected to announce tens of billions of pounds of tax rises at the budget because her fiscal headroom has been eradicated by a rise in government borrowing costs since the spring statement in March.
Officials at the Office for Budget Responsibility, the UK’s official forecaster, have also signalled to the chancellor that they will mark down their projection for the country’s productivity and economic growth in the coming years.
This month the chancellor said: “People who seem to know what is in the budget before we have made those decisions are just wrong. A lot of them are talking rubbish and frankly a lot of what they’re saying is irresponsible. I will make the decisions.”
I think this is going to be a defining budget, Reeves maiden budget led to a lot of unintended consequences.
Given that the Chancellor is now very aware of the outcome let’s see if it’s more of the same or something genuinely beneficial to increasing productivity.
SME’s have been hammered, the ONS gave an excellent summary of the reality of the last budget shortly after it was presented.
I hope it’s going to be a more intelligent approach this time around.
Or you do what every sane person would do, raise £15bn a year by killing the triple lock.
Has the 25bn in extra £ for the NHS from employers national insurance actually gone on anything specific or was it just thrown into the black hole abyss
Local councils cost us around £139 billion. Why are we not cutting waste here and centralising services ? Think of the economies of scale if you bought toilet rolls by the million as a central purchase rather than separate contracts etc etc.
> including introducing an “exit tax” on investors that leave the UK,
Because capital controls have always worked out so well.
> forcing people who inherit assets to pay capital gains tax on the change in value since they were bought rather than since the date of death
I see the rationale – right now dying effectively avoids some CGT. The problem is how do people know what their dead parents bought stuff for decades ago? There aren’t always good records or if there are they might not be findable/accessible. This is even worse if you apply it to stuff that people have already inherited – eventually (after 10 years or so) we destroyed the vast majority my late father’s old paperwork – people don’t just keep boxes of old files forever.
Wow so inheriting a property outside of the nil rate band would attract a 64% tax rate as a higher tax rate payer.
Brutal.
So a think-tank is saying ‘heres some speculative ideas that can raise revenue without specifically targeting rich people’
Nah.
Sounds great, might buy us a few more years of triple lock.
Just to highlight why this country is totally and utterly fucked until we sort this out –
Even if she does do this. Even if it does work perfectly as described. Even if there are no unintended consequences that led to unwanted downstream effects.
£21bn *just about* covers the bill from the Pensions Triple Lock of the last 3 years. Or put another way if we continue at the same pace this sort of savings would give us ~3 years of wiggle room before being totally consumed by the growing pensions bill.
This is *by definition* unsustainable, we cannot continue with this.
“including introducing an “exit tax” on investors that leave the UK, subjecting landlords’ rental income to national insurance”
Economics isn’t my strong point but won’t this discourage investment in the UK and reduce rental supply (because the landlords might decide it’s not profitable enough for the hassle and just sell instead)
>forcing people who inherit assets to pay capital gains tax on the change in value since they were bought rather than since the date of death
Will this include the Duke of Westminster, the royal family and other generational land-hoarders?
**”subjecting landlords’ rental income to national insurance”** -> more rental price hikes 🙁
Again, it’s always to poor and part of the middle class that will pay more. And coming from Labour…
And they have the nerve to say: “Demos argued that the changes would make the tax system fairer by reducing the tax burden on people working salaried jobs”