A wealth tax looks seductive to Labour but must be resisted
It must be hoped that Kinnock was freelancing rather than flying a kite on behalf of a cabinet member. Labour's left has been emboldened by Sir Keir Starmer's U-turns on more than £6 billion of winter fuel and welfare cuts. The reversals, combined with possible productivity downgrades from the independent fiscal watchdog, could leave Rachel Reeves scrambling to fill a £20 billion hole by autumn. Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, proposed up to £4 billion of extra taxes on high-earners and the wealthy before the spring statement. Starmer's spokesman refused to rule out a wealth tax when questioned last week, although Reeves is known to oppose it.
Labour, which still bears the scars of Kinnock's defeat in 1992, put itself in a straitjacket by promising not to raise taxes on 'working people' before last year's election. Starmer and Reeves were entitled to point out that the Conservatives left a dreadful fiscal legacy, having splurged during Covid and allowed borrowing to balloon. But it was Labour's pre-election pledge that guided the chancellor's decision to soak business in the October budget. That loaded £25 billion on to employers' national insurance contributions, imposed inheritance tax on farms and family-owned companies and increased taxes on capital gains and carried interest. It was also the chancellor who toughened up the Conservatives' measures on non-doms by making all their global assets liable for UK inheritance tax after 10 years.
• Emma Duncan: It's a bit rich Labour raising taxes on this lot
Labour's first budget has already sapped animal spirits. Although numbers are difficult to check and are often produced by vested interests — Henley and Partners, a relocation specialist, claims the UK will lose a net 16,500 dollar millionaires this year — anecdotal evidence, plus a newfound vibrancy in rival domiciles such as Italy, suggests the non-dom reforms in particular may be causing an exodus of the wealthy.
The Labour left prefers not to confront fiscal reality, committed to high taxation and redistribution. But make no mistake: a wealth tax, on top of last autumn's harsh medicine, would be arsenic for the UK's economy. In considering a new tax, it pays to look at past examples. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 12 countries had wealth taxes in 1990. Just four still levied them by 2017. Spain introduced a wealth tax in 2022, broadly payable on assets over €2 million for a couple, which brought in €632 million in 2023 — 0.25 per cent of the government's total tax revenue for that year. The equivalent yield in the UK would be £2 billion, less than a third of the savings forgone by the Labour leadership in its recent U-turns on winter fuel payments and welfare.
Wealth taxes are not just economically harmful but burdensome to administer. The rich are more mobile than ever, so the biggest fish rarely get caught. Refusing to exempt assets such as principal residences amounts to political suicide, but exemptions bring complications and opportunities for avoidance. A 'flash' wealth tax carried out once, without warning, would capture more revenue. But it would also destroy confidence in the rule of law. It is also worth remembering that the top 1 per cent of earners in the UK contribute almost 30 per cent of income tax revenue. The top 10 per cent stump up about 60 per cent of it.
• Why a wealth tax won't work
Starmer's failure to convince many of his backbenchers of the need for fiscal discipline has left the government caught between a rock and a hard place. Cuts to the welfare bill, although politically toxic, are still needed. Ministers will have to remake the argument but are unlikely to do so before the autumn budget. Reeves will inevitably look at a variety of stealth measures to try to square the tax-and-spend circle. But she should avoid a wealth tax that would accelerate the flight of entrepreneurs. The rich may appear to pay the price at first, but it is Labour's 'working people' who will eventually pick up the bill.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
13 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Glasgow leader urged to help UK Government in devolution row
It comes as Ms Aitken raised concerns Scotland's largest city had been sidelined by the Chancellor's spending review last month. The Treasury confirmed a £160 million Investment Zone in the Glasgow Region and £20 million for Trailblazer Communities, however the city council leader warned it fell well short of the funding handed to English regions. Mr Murray acknowledged the concerns but said June's spending review issued £52 billion for Scotland, which was 'more money than ever before' to enable the Scottish Government to invest in public services. However, Finance Secretary Shona Robison argued the country had been 'short-changed' by the funding announcements. Mr Murray's letter, seen exclusively by The Herald, said: 'Devolution within Scotland is a matter for the Scottish Government – as are many of the relevant policy areas such as housing, skills and transport – but we would be delighted to work with them to help ensure the Glasgow City Region has the tools you need to deliver change and unlock the same levels of growth as your English counterparts in Greater Manchester. Read more: 'We are always open to constructive discussions with the Scottish Government to reverse its centralisation policy and devolve powers to our cities and regions. 'I would welcome a joint letter between ourselves to the First Minister to kick start this conversation.' The Scottish Secretary offered his team to draft a letter to the First Minister if Ms Aitken agreed. But last month, Ms Aitken accused the Chancellor of of taking a 'retrograde step' for devolution in Scotland that risked 'disempowering' Glasgow. Her concern related to detailed commitments outlined in the spending review which expanded integrated settlements for English city regions. It meant city regions in England would not have to apply for individual grants through competitive bidding processes. Instead, the designated cities are set to receive long-term funding that allows Mayors greater autonomy in making their own investment decisions. Read more: Following the spending review, these settlements are being expanded to include London, the North East, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, and Liverpool City Region. Almost 40% of England's population will now have local control over this funding, with these regions joining existing arrangements in Greater Manchester and West Midlands. Glasgow, meanwhile, was the only Scottish region selected to be part of the National Wealth Fund which will help local leaders develop investment and growth priorities. However, the city also has to bid for funding for Westminster alongside other parts of the UK. In a letter seen by The Herald last month, Ms Aitken criticised the spending review. She said: "It is clear from the Spending Review that the UK Government recognises the best way to support economic growth of English City Regions is through an integrated settlement, allowing places the ability to make their own investment decisions. 'And yet Glasgow City Region, which is larger in population, size of economy, opportunity and need than most of the Mayoral Combined Authorities, is reduced to simply administering programmes on behalf of UK Government as if it were a small local authority.' She added: 'The empowerment of our comparator city regions in England and the disempowerment of Glasgow City Region threatens all of the progress we have made. We have a shared priority of growing Scotland's economy and ensuring our people reap the benefits of that. 'We cannot grow Scotland's economy without growing Glasgow's economy — and yet yesterday's budget will not contribute to that growth and will cause us to fall behind our English counterparts.' Finance and Local Government Secretary Shona Robison said: 'The UK Spending Review document sets out in black and white that our funding for day-to-day spending is set to grow by only 0.8% over the next three years, compared with 1.2% average growth for UK Government departments. This will short-change us by £1.1 billion pounds which could make a real difference to our communities and councils, so the Secretary of State should and could be urging the Chancellor to reverse that if he wants to help Scotland. 'Councils play a crucial role in our communities which is why we jointly launched the Local Governance Review with COSLA to ensure communities have greater control and influence over decisions that affect them most. 'We are also committed to working with local authorities to deliver greater regional empowerment on decision making and investment and are working with partners to explore ways of devolving further powers to Regional Economic Partnerships, including Glasgow City Region. 'In addition, the Scottish Government has delivered a wide range of fiscal powers for local councils including greater powers within planning, parking charges, workplace parking and in Council Tax, being able to charge up to 100% on second and long term empty homes.' Finance Secretary Shona Robison said: 'The UK Spending Review document sets out in black and white that our funding for day-to-day spending is set to grow by only 0.8% over the next three years, compared with 1.2% average growth for UK Government departments. This will short-change us by £1.1 billion pounds which could make a real difference to our communities and councils, so the secretary of State should and could be urging the Chancellor to reverse that if he wants to help Scotland. 'Councils play a crucial role in our communities which is why we jointly launched the Local Governance Review with COSLA to ensure communities have greater control and influence over decisions that affect them most. 'We are also committed to working with local authorities to deliver greater regional empowerment on decision making and investment and are working with partners to explore ways of devolving further powers to Regional Economic Partnerships, including Glasgow City Region. 'In addition, the Scottish Government has delivered a wide range of fiscal powers for local councils including greater powers within planning, parking charges, workplace parking and in Council Tax, being able to charge up to 100% on second and long term empty homes.'
Scotsman
24 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Readers' letters: A Margaret Thatcher-style government is what's needed today
Margaret Thatcher's ethos – based on upward mobility and self-reliance – is sadly lacking today, a reader says Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Lord Tebbit died last week, one of the last survivors of Margaret Thatcher's reforming government of the 1980s. Probably at the name 'Margaret Thatcher' many readers will immediately switch off and mutter 'free school milk', 'poll tax' and 'miners' strike'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad History demonstrates that these events did happen and often, as in the miners' strike resulted in destroying mining communities that had relied upon this employment to sustain them. Margaret Thatcher led a reforming government, a reader says (Picture:) Trying to reform local government income to spread the cost among a broader base attracted real anger when trialled in Scotland to the extent that no real attempt to reform local taxation has been attempted since. However, as we continue to sink into what appears to be a an ever deeper debt hole plus employment malaise, we should remind ourselves that the Thatcher era of Conservative government was underpinned by an ethos which was based on a simple premise that has been lost by government policy: family responsibilities as an example. In short that ethos was based on the value of upward mobility and self-reliance coupled with a belief in national economic and energy security, all of which have disappeared under the guise of equality and government action apparently keen to punish all those who aspire to be better through a penal tax policy. Not forgetting, of course, the mad dash for green energy that hinders any chance of economic growth by imposing high energy costs on industry and households. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Can we expect any political party to revert to supporting the idea that economic progress can only come from empowerment of all by reducing taxation and energy costs plus removing onerous legislation requirements that hinder rather than support employment? At present, unfortunately, the answer has to be a resounding no but surely sensible policies will emerge shortly to help us regain a measure of self-respect and responsibilty for our own actions. A Lewis, Coylton, South Ayrshire Labour pains It is hard not to agree with John McLellan (Scotsman, 11 July) that the Labour government may be a lame duck one already. There are ballooning welfare costs, but when the government tries to remedy this, its own backbenchers stop it. It is likely they will be unable to tackle this. Then there is the threat of strike action by doctors in England, even after a generous pay settlement in the past – is it because doctors see this government as a soft touch? After all, the government has been making many U-turns. Are we about to see the return of union militancy? if so, this could be the end of Labour and, if Kemi Badenoch plays her cards right, the rise of the Tories. William Ballantine, Bo'ness, West Lothian Voting age Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Thank you, Susan Dalgety (Scotsman. 12 July), for confirming that it's not only Unicef which defines children as all those under 18 years old, but even the SNP and Holyrood Parliament do so too – under the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act of 2014, and by Holyrood 'unanimously incorporating' the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child into Scots Law in 2024. Article One of the Convention defines a child as 'every human being under the age of 18'. Thus by these wise decisions, offset by not raising the minimum age for marriage from 16 to 18, the SNP and all Holyrood MSPs have on their own definition legitimised child marriage – presumably without realising it, such is their attention to detail. Moreover, those SNP and other MSPs who voted (childishly?) to reduce our voting age from 18 to 16 have effectively admitted that they believe children should have the vote. Both these unwise consequences should be rectified forthwith, by setting 18 as the minimum threshold for both (as my preference of 20 or 21 is no doubt totally off the page). John Birkett, St Andrews, Fife Zoned out Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Last week UK Energy Secretary, Ed Miliband announced that he would not support the case for zonal pricing of electricity on the basis that 'it would be unfair to zones such as the Midlands, Wales and the South of England'. As Scotland was clearly going to be a beneficiary of zonal pricing due to the fact that a huge chunk of the UK's renewable energy is produced here, then Miliband's decision could be considered to be based solely on southern interests. Although his decision drew criticism from Scottish MPs of various parties, there was none forthcoming from our Scottish Labour MPs. On that basis can we therefore assume that they are content for Scotland not to have the opportunity to be able to be in the position where it is seen as a more attractive proposition for industries than some parts of our southern neighbours? Many of us in Scotland who have for decades witnessed Scottish jobs haemorrhaging to England find Scottish Labour's position inexplicable. Compounding this, however, was the statement by the Under Secretary of State for Energy, Michael Shanks MP, on Radio Scotland (10 July) that the renewable energy generated by Scotlands wind farms isn't really Scottish renewable energy because, 'there isn't Scottish wind or English wind, there's GB wind'. The fact that the turbines that capture the wind to generate the renewable energy and the equipment to then transport it southwards across much of our scenic countryside are located in Scotland seems to have been lost on Mr Shanks. His attitude (and that of the Labour Party as a whole) towards Scotland seems to be that we are here to produce renewable energy and put up with the costs without deriving any benefit. From the1980s onwards we witnessed Scotland's North Sea oil wealth being drained. We now appear to be entering a similar scenario with regard to our renewable energy. Jim Finlayson, Banchory, Aberdeenshire Write to The Scotsman
The Guardian
26 minutes ago
- The Guardian
UK may need new scheme to detect people obsessed with violence, report to say
A new scheme to detect people who are obsessed with violence before they kill, such as the Southport attacker Axel Rudakubana, should be considered by the government, an official report will say. The report into Prevent, the controversial programme intended to stop people from becoming terrorists, will also find repeated 'failings' in the case of the man who went on to assassinate the MP Sir David Amess, the Guardian understands. It has been compiled by David Anderson KC, the interim reviewer of Prevent. Anderson's report was first ordered by the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, in January after revelations in the Guardian that the Southport attacker had been referred three times to Prevent and rejected each time because officials believed he was not motivated by any clear terrorist ideology. Anderson was later asked to examine blunders in how the scheme handled the case of Ali Harbi Ali in the years before he stabbed Amess to death as the MP held a constituency surgery in 2021, in what has been classed as a terrorist attack. The findings are likely to intensify the campaign by the family of the murdered veteran Tory MP that there should be a public inquiry into what the authorities knew about the dangers posed by Amess's killer, and whether he could have been stopped. The government has so far resisted that call. The Amess family want an inquiry similar to that into the Southport atrocity, which started hearings this week. Rudakubana, then 17, stabbed three young girls to death at a summer holiday dance class in July 2024 in Southport, and attempted to murder eight other children and two adults who tried to protect them. Rudakubana's case was rejected three times by Prevent because, while there was concern about his interest in violence, there was no sign it was driven by a terrorist ideology. As well as those driven to violence by such an ideology, police and the government are concerned about young men consuming a 'pick and mix' of horror online and showing levels of interest in violence considered to be worrying. Anderson's report, expected to be published imminently, is the first official report after the Southport case to say a new anti-violence scheme needs to be considered for those thought to pose a threat, but where no terrorist ideology is detected. Any new anti-violence scheme would be in addition to Prevent and possibly even include it as a specific element to deal with those where ideology, such as Islamist or far right, is present. Multiple sources told the Guardian that while a new anti-violence scheme may be needed, a lack of money may thwart its setting-up. The number of people potentially needing to be covered by it could dwarf the average of 6,000-7,000 referred to Prevent annually. Anderson suggests a review should take place into whether the new anti-violence scheme should be set up. Rudakubana's conviction last year led to a usually secret internal review by Prevent into his case to be published, followed by one into the Amess case. Anderson finds Prevent has made improvements after those reviews and revelations about failings. But issues remain, including about how the state deals with those fixated with violence, who are mainly young men, and assessing who will go on to attack. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion Those with knowledge of the Southport public inquiry expect it to hear allegations of deficiencies in other agencies' handling of Rudakubana during the years leading up to his atrocity. Speaking about the Southport case, Cooper said in January: 'This terrible case comes against a backdrop over a series of years in which growing numbers of teenagers have been referred to Prevent, investigated by counter-terror police, or referred to other agencies amid concerns around serious violence and extremism. We need to face up to why this has been happening and what needs to change.' Later, explaining why the Anderson review was needed, Cooper said: 'His first task will be to conduct a thorough review of the Prevent history in this case to identify what changes are needed to make sure serious cases are not missed, particularly where there is mixed and unclear ideology.' Rudakubana was referred three times to Prevent for an interest in knives and mass atrocities, in December 2019 and twice in 2021. Ali was convicted of Amess's murder in 2022, when he was 26. He had been referred to Prevent in 2014 by his school and his case was adopted amid concerns he could have an interest in violent Islamism. His case was closed in 2016 after he had been referred to the Channel scheme for those deemed most at risk of radicalisation. He tricked the scheme into thinking he was not a terrorist threat, known as 'disguised compliance', but far from being deradicalised, Ali went on to consume Islamic State propaganda. A year after being cleared by Prevent and Channel, he had wanted to travel to join IS in Syria. Having been thwarted in that aim, he started researching and hunting for an MP to murder. In October 2021, Ali attacked Amess, 69, stabbing him with a knife 21 times as he held a Southend West and Leigh constituency surgery in a Leigh-on-Sea church. Ali told an onlooker he was doing it for Syria. Ali is serving a whole-life tariff for murder. Rudakubana is serving a life sentence with a minimum tariff of 52 years. Prevent is the official national programme to identify those feared to be falling for terrorist ideologies and turn them away from carrying out violence. Children and adults referred to the scheme are assessed and, if they are deemed to pose sufficient risk, work is done to reduce that danger.
