Horse racing faces fresh risk of ruin as Rachel Reeves mulls hiking taxes on betting
CHANCELLOR Rachel Reeves is considering a betting tax rise — placing the struggling racing industry at fresh risk of ruin.
The Treasury wants to lift the levy for punts on the gee-gees from 15 to 21 per cent to put in on a par with online gaming, slot machines and casinos.
2
Critics argue the move would see less sponsorship, prize money and support from the betting giants that keep the racing industry alive.
Any new rate would be announced in a Budget.
Ministers have already proposed replacing the General Betting Duty, which applies to racing, and the Remote Gaming Duty, with a single Remote Betting and Gaming Duty.
It would be applied to all bets, regardless of where they are laid, and comes as punters increasingly use mobile devices to place wagers.
Grainne Hurst, boss of the Betting and Gaming Council, said equalising the tax rates would be 'catastrophic for racing's fragile finances'.
She said a new rise, so soon after a White Paper which cost the sector more than a billion pounds, 'will not raise more money for the Treasury'.
She said it was likely to force firms to push investment and jobs overseas.
Punters, she added, would turn to the gambling black market online which pays no tax and has no safer gambling protections.
The Treasury insisted the changes would not affect high street bookies and bingo halls and cut red tape for firms by reducing the number of returns they have to make.
It said no exact rates had yet been decided.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
The towns where one in five residents claims benefits
Britain's welfare system is so generous that in some towns, one in five people receives disability benefits, new analysis has found. The number of people claiming a free car because of conditions such as anxiety, autism and anorexia has also quadrupled in just six years. Across the country, almost one in 10 people receives Personal Independence Payments (Pip). The analysis, compiled by the TaxPayers' Alliance, was released just days after Labour backbenchers forced Rachel Reeves to back down on her plans to cut the benefits bill. The Chancellor had planned to save money by saying Pip claimants had to have a higher disability score. But on Thursday, she was forced into an about-turn to placate rebel MPs. As part of the deal, the restriction will only affect new claimants, while those already on the benefit will continue to receive it. The change of heart will cost the Treasury some £3 billion, increasing the chance that taxes will have to rise in the autumn Budget. Sir Mel Stride, the shadow chancellor, said the rise in disability payments was 'the result of a broken system'. Writing in The Telegraph, he said: 'If Labour comes forward with a real plan to reform welfare, we'll support it. But right now, there is no plan. Just chaos, indecision, and short-term political survival dressed up as strategy.' The TaxPayers' Alliance analysis shows that in the worst hotspot, Blaenau Gwent in Wales, the number of Pip claimants stands at 211 per 1,000 people – more than one in five. The English local authority with the highest number of claimants is Knowsley in Merseyside, where 198 per 1,000 people receive Pip. There are 12 local authorities in England and Wales where the proportion on Pip exceeds one in six. The analysis includes a full breakdown of the different conditions which people have used to claim the mobility component of enhanced Pip, which can be used for the Motability scheme, where a new car is purchased using the higher rate of Pip. Among the number of people claiming enhanced Pip between January 2019 and March 2025, the condition with the largest absolute increase was autism, with claims increasing from 26,256 to 114,211. Other large increases were seen for anxiety disorders (up to 18,058); anorexia (2,044); obsessive compulsive disorder (2,783); and personality disorder (19,884). A total of 33,741 people with schizophrenia have free cars through enhanced Pip's Motability scheme, plus people with post-traumatic stress disorder (20,368) and mixed anxiety and depression (110,075). Overall, the number of people claiming the mobility component of enhanced Pip has increased by 142 per cent over that period. There is now a total of 1.9 million claimants, or 50 per 1,000 people on average. John O'Connell, the chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: 'It's no exaggeration to say that this is becoming an emergency for taxpayers, as the number of Pip claimants spirals out of control. 'And yet even minor adjustments that seek not to reverse this rate of increase but instead to simply slow it down seem to be beyond the pale for this profligate posse of Labour MPs. 'Politicians across the spectrum need to now put country over party and radically reform the benefits system to avoid it crippling the nation's finances while ensuring that more and more people are liberated from a life of benefits and dependency.' The TaxPayers' Alliance analysis shows that Welsh local authorities tend to have the highest rates of Pip claims. After Blaenau Gwent, Merthyr Tydfil and Knowsley, the next highest are Neath Port Talbot and Caerphilly. Sixth is Hartlepool (187 per 1,000), then Blackpool (185), Torfaen (177), Sunderland (173) and Rhondda Cynon Taf (173). The largest increase in Pip claimants between 2019 and 2025 was the east of England, which saw a 118 per cent increase. Benefits bill will soar under Labour By Mel Stride Welfare spending is out of control – and under Labour, it's only getting worse. The Prime Minister has caved to pressure from his own MPs and watered down one of the few welfare reforms his Government was willing to even attempt. After days of internal rebellion and the real risk of defeat in Parliament, Keir Starmer has bottled it. That decision will cost the country £3 billion a year by the end of the decade. When you add in the cost of the Winter Fuel Payment U-turn, economists reckon there is now an unfunded £4.5 billion hole in the finances. This is not a small tweak. It's a major climbdown that wipes out most of the expected savings from Labour's welfare reforms. It's the latest in a growing list of screeching U-turns from a weak Labour Government and will cost hard-working taxpayers – with higher taxes in the autumn. Welfare spending was set to keep rising even if Labour had delivered its proposals in full. Now it will rise even faster. Just last week, Liz Kendall, the Work and Pensions Secretary, admitted that Pip claims are set to increase by 750,000 during this Parliament despite Labour's proposals, with the cost of the benefit surging by £8 billion. That's before we even factor in this week's retreat. One in 10 working-age adults is now claiming health or disability benefits – a staggering figure. Disability claims are on track to double compared to before the pandemic. Incapacity claims are expected to rise by 60 per cent. These trends are not the result of a sudden, national health collapse. They are the result of a broken system. Before the election, Labour tried to blame long NHS waiting lists. But that excuse doesn't hold water – the Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown there's no clear link between NHS delays and the surge in health-related benefit claims. This is a deeper structural problem. It requires bold reform. And Labour is simply not up to the task. When I was work and pensions secretary, we had a plan. We were on course to reduce the numbers on long-term sickness benefits by 450,000. Labour scrapped that. We launched a consultation to completely overhaul the Pip system and make it sustainable – Labour binned that too. When Labour did eventually bring forward its own proposals in March, the Office for Budget Responsibility concluded those changes would actually reduce employment – the exact opposite of what the country needs – because they cancelled my reforms. Labour's plans were rushed and half-baked. More than 120 Labour MPs threatened rebellion and Starmer folded. His beleaguered Chancellor is now staring at a £4.5 billion shortfall, and Downing Street won't rule out further tax rises in the autumn to make up the gap. The risk is real: if Labour can't even deliver these modest reforms, what hope does it ever have of getting the welfare bill down and controlling the public finances? We warned this would happen. You cannot fix the economy without fixing welfare – and Labour has failed at the first hurdle. If Labour comes forward with a real plan to reform welfare, we'll support it. But right now, there is no plan. Just chaos, indecision, and short-term political survival dressed up as strategy. Britain needs leadership with a plan. A Prime Minister who will take the tough decisions and put the long-term interests of the country first. Not a Government lurching from crisis to crisis. We can't afford Labour.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Calls to reform Lifetime ISAs over ‘nonsensical' rules causing savers to lose their own money
MPs have warned that those who invest in a Lifetime ISA (LISA) may get back less money than they put into the scheme. LISAs are a product for first-time homebuyers or savers for pensions where they can put up to £4,000 in per year and the government will top up that figure by an additional 25 per cent. They can be opened by any adult under 40 in the UK and contributions count towards each person's overall £20,000 annual ISA allowance. However, their dual-nature has long been a target of criticism, as well as the complex criteria for using the funds, which has led to many people losing more than they initially save. The £450,000 restriction on how much a house can be worth has not changed with rising property prices, while two different variations of the LISA exist to further skew matters – one in cash, and one where money within it can be invested. A Treasury report said in 2023-24 that a total of 99,650 people made unauthorised withdrawals from Cash LISAs – in other words, taking their money out other than to buy a new home or to take a pension – compared with 56,900 who actually used it to purchase a house. When removing money from the account for any reason other than the stated allowed uses or in case of terminal illness, a 25 per cent fine is levied on the cash. However, this means an effective penalty of 6.25 per cent on people on their own money, not just the return of the government's cash. The government report called this penalty 'nonsensical'. "Cash LISAs may suit those saving for a first home but may not achieve the best outcome for those using it as a retirement savings product, as they are unable to invest in higher risk but potentially higher return products such as bonds and equities," a Treasury report said. Rachael Griffin, tax and financial planning expert at Quilter, commented after the investment company's evidence was used to show the Lisas were 'fundamentally flawed and not always delivering good outcomes for savers'. 'We're pleased that committee acknowledged Quilter's evidence on its dual purpose being confusing for savers,' Ms Griffin said. 'Savers are often unsure how to use the product, and that uncertainty can lead to poor decisions. 'The withdrawal penalty is also one of the products most pressing problems. It removes the government bonus but also reduces the saver's own contributions. For those facing unexpected costs or whose house purchase exceeds the price cap, the penalty feels disproportionate and unfair. A simpler system that only recovers the bonus would be far more reasonable.'
The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
Lifetime Isas may need to carry warnings for some savers
The complexity of Lifetime Isas could increase the risk of savers making poor financial decisions and the products may need to carry warnings for some people, according to a committee of MPs. The savings accounts enable people to save for their first home or their retirement in one pot. But the Treasury Committee said the dual-purpose design of the Lifetime Isa, or Lisa, may be diverting people away from more suitable products. MPs found that the objectives to help people save for both the short and long term make it more likely that people will choose unsuitable investment strategies. Lisas held in cash may suit those saving for a first home, but may not achieve the best outcome for those using accounts as a retirement savings product, as they are unable to invest in higher-risk but potentially higher-return products such as bonds and equities, the committee said. It also described current rules penalising benefit claimants as 'nonsensical'. Under the current system, any savings held in a Lisa can affect eligibility for universal credit or housing benefit, despite this not being the case for other personal or workplace pension schemes, the committee said. The report said: 'The Government provides higher levels of contribution through tax relief to many other pension products that are not included in the universal credit eligibility assessment, such as workplace pensions and Sipps (self-invested personal pensions). Treating one retirement product differently from others in that regard is nonsensical.' The report added: 'If the Government is unwilling to equalise the treatment of the Lifetime Isa with other Government-subsidised retirement savings products in universal credit assessments, Lifetime Isa products must include warnings that the Lifetime Isa is an inferior product for anyone who might one day be in receipt of universal credit. 'Such warnings would guard against savers being sold products that are not in their best financial interests, which might well constitute mis-selling.' Savers can put in up to £4,000 into a Lisa each year, until they reach 50. They must make their first payment into their Lisa before the age of 40. The Government will add a 25% bonus to Lisa savings, up to a maximum of £1,000 per year. People can withdraw money from their Lisa if they are buying their first home, aged 60 or over or terminally ill with less than 12 months to live. People withdrawing money from a Lisa for any other reason face a 25% withdrawal charge, and can end up with less money than they put in. The report said: 'The withdrawal charge of 25% is applied to unauthorised withdrawals, causing Lisa holders to lose the Government bonuses that they have received, plus 6.25% of their own contributions. 'Several witnesses described that loss of 6.25% as a 'withdrawal penalty'.' There are also restrictions on when Lisas can be used to buy a first home, including that the property must cost £450,000 or less. The report said: 'Many people have lost a portion of their savings due to a lack of understanding of the withdrawal charge or because of unforeseen changes in their circumstances, such as buying a first home at a price greater than the cap. 'However, the case for reducing the charge must be balanced against the impact on Government spending. The Lifetime Isa must include a deterrent to discourage savers from withdrawing funds from long-term saving.' It also added: 'Before considering any increase in the house price cap, the Government must analyse whether the Lifetime Isa is the most effective way in which to spend taxpayers' money to support first-time buyers.' The committee noted that in the 2023-24 financial year, nearly double the number of people made an unauthorised withdrawal (99,650) compared to the number of people who used their Lisa to buy a home (56,900). This should be considered a possible indication that the product is not working as intended, the committee said. At the end of the tax year 2023–24, around 1.3 million Lisa accounts were open, the report said. The Office for Budget Responsibility predicts spending on bonuses paid to account holders will cost the Treasury around £3 billion over the five years to 2029-30 – and the committee questioned whether this product is the best use of public money given the current financial strain. MPs also raised concerns that the product may not be well enough targeted towards those in need of financial support and could be subsidising the cost of a first home for wealthier people. It said the data on this issue remains unclear. The report also highlighted the benefits of certain elements of the Lisa, including being an option for the self-employed to save for retirement. Treasury Committee chairwoman Dame Meg Hillier said: 'The committee is firmly behind the objectives of the Lifetime Isa, which are to help those who need it onto the property ladder and to help people save for retirement from an early age. The question is whether the Lifetime Isa is the best way to spend billions of pounds over several years to achieve those goals. 'We know that the Government is looking at Isa reform imminently, which means this is the perfect time to assess if this is the best way to help the people who need it. 'We are still awaiting further data that may shed some light on who exactly the product is helping. What we already know, though, is that the Lifetime Isa needs to be reformed before it can genuinely be described as a market-leading savings product for both prospective home buyers and those who want to start saving for their retirement at a young age.' Brian Byrnes, head of personal finance at Lifetime Isa provider Moneybox said: 'The report marks a further opportunity to engage with policymakers and continue the conversations needed to ensure the Lisa continues to offer the best level of support to those that need it most.' He added: 'While it is right that the Government ensures the Lisa provides value for money as part of its review of the product, it is our view that it absolutely does… 'The Lisa has proven particularly valuable for first-time buyers on lower to middle incomes, with 80% of Moneybox Lisa savers earning £40,000 or less.' He continued: 'We firmly believe that by future-proofing the house price cap and amending the withdrawal penalty, the Lisa would continue to serve as a highly effective product, helping young people build and embed positive saving behaviours early in life, get more people onto the property ladder, and prepare for a more secure retirement.'
