Reeves braced for OBR forecasts to blow £20bn hole in tax and spending plans
Even without changing the totals the chancellor set out in her spending review on Wednesday, a weaker forecast from the the Treasury's independent watchdog could force her to find significantly more money at the budget to meet her 'non-negotiable' fiscal rules.
Reeves has said repeatedly that flexing her fiscal rules – designed to provide certainty over UK public finances – is not an option even if the economic outlook deteriorates.
At her spring statement, she left herself on course to meet those rules with less than £10bn of headroom to spare, on a total budget for day-to-day spending of more than £1.3tn.
Amid trepidation at the Treasury, the OBR has kicked off its annual summer review of the 'supply side' of the economy – including productivity, which it has consistently overestimated.
Sources with knowledge of the OBR's thinking told the Guardian that the watchdog was 'uncomfortable', with the fact its current forecast for productivity growth was more positive than the consensus from other economic forecasters, and wanted to 'rein it in'.
Productivity is one of the key determinants of economic growth, and revising it down would have a significant knock on effect on the OBR's forecasts for gross domestic product.
The consultancy Oxford Economics estimates that moving the productivity forecast back in line with the average independent projection, would knock 1.4% off forecast GDP at the end of the OBR's five-year forecast period.
That would force Reeves to increase taxes or cut spending by an eye-watering £20bn, to meet her fiscal rules and maintain her slim £10bn of headroom. That would be roughly equivalent to raising both the main and higher rates of income tax by 2p.
A more cautious approach, taking the middle path between two alternative 'scenarios' the OBR set out in its March economic and financial outlook, could still force the chancellor to make a £12bn correction.
The OBR could send an early signal of its intention to revisit its productivity outlook as soon as 1 July, in its regular forecast evaluation report.
Andy King, a former member of the OBR's budget responsibility committee, now at the consultancy Flint Global, said: 'The reason why anyone in the Treasury who cares about this will be worried, is that the OBR is currently more optimistic than everyone else.
'What can happen next? Either everyone else thinks, 'We're too pessimistic'; or the OBR thinks, 'We are too far away from the pack, there's been more bad news than good since March, we should revise down.' I think that's the expectation for many.'
The Treasury is likely to point the OBR to policies it hopes will be positive for productivity growth in the long term, including infrastructure investment, though the scale of this was already known before the OBR's last forecast in March.
Alongside weaker productivity, slower net migration as a result of the government's recent white paper could also prompt the OBR to be more pessimistic.
James Smith an economist at ING, said: 'Further downgrades to trend productivity growth projections, as well as net migration, mean the chancellor is likely in the red, before even considering the mounting pressures on the public purse.
'The overall shortfall may amount to at least £20bn, and that means tax rises are highly likely.'
Adrian Pabst, the deputy director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, said the prospect of another significant forecast revision underlined the current instability of tax and spend policy.
'We're in this vicious circle where we've got these fiscal rules, then the OBR have to take a view, because that's their remit, that's their mandate; and then we're constantly speculating about what is going to happen at the next fiscal event,' he said, adding: 'It's not a good place for fiscal policy to be.'
In a recent speech, Reeves said: 'Strong and transparent fiscal rules are an indispensable safeguard for working people – and that is why my rules are non-negotiable.'
The Treasury declined to comment on the prospect of an OBR growth downgrade but underlined Reeves's determination to stick to her fiscal rules.
The OBR declined to comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
US Trade Talk Delays Jolt South Korean Leader's Honeymoon Phase
(Bloomberg) -- Less than two months into his presidency, South Korean leader Lee Jae Myung is facing an early diplomatic and economic test, as his top negotiators struggle to make headway in trade talks with the US before higher levies kick in next week. Trump Awards $1.26 Billion Contract to Build Biggest Immigrant Detention Center in US The High Costs of Trump's 'Big Beautiful' New Car Loan Deduction Can This Bridge Ease the Troubled US-Canadian Relationship? Salt Lake City Turns Winter Olympic Bid Into Statewide Bond Boom South Korean negotiators faced a series of canceled meetings this week, a setback in their push to finalize a trade deal ahead of the looming Aug. 1 deadline, when across-the-board tariffs on US imports of Korean goods are set to rise to 25% from 10%. While some meetings may be rescheduled in the coming days, the delays stand in stark contrast to the progress made by countries like Japan, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Vietnam, all of which have secured agreements that helped them avoid the worst-case tariff scenarios. Lee is enjoying strong support on hopes for an economic recovery after months of political turmoil sparked by the impeachment of former President Yoon Suk Yeol. But he needs a breakthrough in trade negotiations to shield Korea's export-reliant economy. In 2024, overseas shipments were equivalent to more than 40% of South Korea's GDP, making the stakes especially high. The back-to-back, last-minute cancellations come at a precarious moment. South Korea's National Security Adviser Wi Sung-lac said the talks are at their 'final stages' and a 'critical juncture,' but he was unable to meet with his US counterpart, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, during a four-day visit to Washington that concluded Thursday. Wi said he made a planned visit to the White House, but Rubio was called away at the last minute after receiving an 'urgent call' from Trump. The two officials spoke by phone instead. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent canceled a scheduled meeting with South Korean Finance Minister Koo Yun-cheol, just hours before Koo was due to board a plane to the US. Bessent cited a scheduling conflict. Adding urgency is the freshly signed US–Japan trade agreement this week, which Trump has hailed as a 'great deal for everybody.' Under the agreement, the US will impose 15% tariffs on most imports of goods from Japan, including automobiles, in exchange for Tokyo creating a $550 billion fund to make investments in the US. 'You know the Koreans also like the Europeans, they very very much want to make a deal,' Trump's Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick, said on CNBC on Thursday. 'I mean you could hear the expletives out of Korea when they read the Japanese deal because the Koreans and the Japanese they stare at each other.' What Bloomberg Economics Says... 'With US President Donald Trump striking a 'massive Deal with Japan,' the task for South Korea now is to ensure its automakers don't get a raw deal that puts them at a competitive disadvantage to Japanese rivals.' — Hyosung Kwon, economist Click here to see full report Despite the setback, South Korean officials are working to keep the momentum alive, focusing on meetings with Lutnick and US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. After a meeting on Thursday, Lutnick and South Korean Industry Minister Kim Jung-kwan reaffirmed their commitment to pursue a mutually beneficial agreement ahead of the Aug. 1 deadline, Kim's office said. The more talks drag on, the more people question the capability of the negotiators. But Rintaro Nishimura, a Tokyo-based associate with strategic advisory firm the Asia Group, said the US trading partners are dealing with a 'very challenging negotiation with three different people who have three different kinds of interests at play.' 'I don't think the US side had one singular idea in terms of what they wanted,' he said, referring to the Japan deal. 'And then Trump would just come in at some point and then say something else.' Burning Man Is Burning Through Cash Elon Musk's Empire Is Creaking Under the Strain of Elon Musk It's Not Just Tokyo and Kyoto: Tourists Descend on Rural Japan Confessions of a Laptop Farmer: How an American Helped North Korea's Wild Remote Worker Scheme A Rebel Army Is Building a Rare-Earth Empire on China's Border ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The £70bn pension tax raid Reeves may not be able to resist
Rachel Reeves is eyeing up your pension. The Chancellor is struggling to balance the books, so where better to look than Gordon Brown's favourite cash cow? It is becoming increasingly likely that she will have to follow in the footsteps of the chancellor whose framed photo she kept as a student, by launching a raid on retirement pots this autumn. As Torsten Bell, the pensions minister, highlighted conspicuously last week, the Government offers tax relief worth £70bn every year to encourage workers to save. While he insisted that incentives to save were 'a good thing', Bell refused to rule out a raid in the future. But while pensions might be a tempting target, the risk of unintended consequences is high. By taking a slice of pension savings, Reeves could inadvertently discourage people from stashing money away or lead to lower pay for the very people that Labour promises to protect. Roughly £12.8bn of individual contributions were made to personal pensions in 2022-23. Data published by the taxman show that in 2022–23, the Government gave up £46.8bn it would have collected if pension contributions had been subject to income tax. That is in addition to £24bn it would have raised if employer pension contributions had been subject to National Insurance (NI) contributions. Another telling statement by Bell this week was that the Government wanted to ensure that people are not 'taxed twice' on the money they save for retirement. He said: 'What does the pension tax system do? It makes it easy for people to smooth their incomes over their lifetime. We're not taxing you twice. That is an important feature of most tax systems, and it will remain an important feature.' But that statement still leaves some low-hanging fruit for the Chancellor to pluck. The first is salary sacrifice, where staff agree to forego a portion of their salary in return for the same amount being ploughed into a workplace pension. As a result, employees can reduce their NI contributions and benefit from tax relief on the money they add to their pension. Employers, who already don't pay NI on an employee's pension contributions, can also reduce their tax bill further because the sacrifice serves as a pay cut. Pensioners do not pay NI, leaving scope for the Government to start taxing one side of this equation and still abide by this principle. HMRC estimates that it lost out on £3.9bn in NI receipts because of salary sacrifice schemes, which would be a princely sum for a cash-strapped Chancellor. In addition, employees currently benefit from roughly £6bn a year in income tax relief through salary sacrifice. 'A generous and opaque subsidy' The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has urged the Government to go further by moving towards levying NI on employer pension contributions as a principle. Carl Emmerson, the deputy director of the IFS, describes the absence of NI on employer pension contributions as 'a very generous and very opaque subsidy' that if removed entirely, could boost the Treasury's coffers by more than £17bn a year. However, with businesses still reeling from a £25bn NI raid on employers, this would be a politically toxic move, and one that Emmerson says will have consequences for working people. 'It would almost certainly put downward pressure on pay, and would also make government spending less generous because lots of public sector workers get generous employer pension contributions, and those public sector employers would find their national insurance bills going up,' he says. To ease pressures, Reeves could choose to reimburse public sector employers as she did during last autumn's raid. The Resolution Foundation has estimated that doing so would cost £5bn – though the measure would still raise £12bn. A more radical option would be to restrict the income tax relief that applies when a worker makes pension contributions at a flat rate of 30pc. This would benefit those on modest income, but at the expense of higher earners. Economists estimate the measure would affect up to 6m higher and additional rate taxpayers, costing the wealthiest savers about £2,600. HMRC estimates show that 37pc of income tax relief on total contributions is provided at the basic rate, just over half at the higher rate and 7pc at the top 45p rate. However, Sir Steve Webb, a former pensions minister, says the Treasury has shied away from this reform because of its hideous complexity, as well as the significant impact it would have on public sector workers and the implications for their gold-plated, final-salary pensions. Sir Steve says: 'The challenge for the Government with potential cuts to pension tax relief is that a significant part of the existing tax break goes to long-serving and senior public servants, typically in defined-benefit pension arrangements.' Any cut to higher rate relief or tax-free lump sums would affect many such workers adversely at a time when the Government already has issues with the public sector workforce over pay. As this group is part of Labour's core voting base, it is likely to be wary of alienating them further. 'Constant meddling' Baroness Altmann, another former pensions minister, warns that changes to pensions, including Reeves's decision to bring pension pots into the scope of inheritance tax, could leave many people without the means to support themselves later in retirement. 'The constant tax meddling has been a disaster for pensions,' she says. Altmann warns that private sector employees are likely to be left footing the bill for any further changes. 'We're already subsidising hugely generous public sector pensions that the private sector can almost never dream of,' she says. There is also another element of the pensions system that is currently tax-free on the way in and out: the amount that can be taken from pension pots. Tax-free lump sum Currently, people can take up to 25pc of any pension as a tax-free lump sum when they reach 55, up to a maximum of £286,275. Reducing the amount to £100,000 would affect about one in five retirees, and raise £2bn in the long run, according to the IFS. A similar proposal is being pushed by the Labour-affiliated Fabian Society, and it is understood that Treasury officials have urged previous chancellors to look at the relief, which costs about £5.5bn a year. Emmerson says: 'If you've already got £900,000 in your pension pot, it's not obvious why the taxpayer should be subsidising you to put more in your pension. These people can't really claim that they're under-saving for retirement.' However, he makes a more obvious point that should make Reeves think twice if she wants to raid workplace pension savings. 'This would almost exclusively be paid by workers,' he says. A Treasury spokesman said they were 'committed to keeping taxes for working people as low as possible'. However, it's now clear that they're going to go up. The question is by how much. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Reeves warned pensions tax raid could cost UK in the long run
City platform Hargreaves Lansdown has warned Rachel Reeves that 'tinkering' with the pension tax relief could cost the UK in the long run and undermine the government's fresh attempts to get workers to save more into retirement. The return of the Pensions Commission, which will report its findings on the adequacy of retirement savings in 2027, will likely see several policies recommended to the government to boost workers' savings as they approach retirement. But Hargreaves Lansdown has warned that expected tax rises in this year's Autumn Budget could thwart plans to boost pension contributions if the lump sum threshold is reduced or rates are changed. Its head of retirement Helen Morrissey said the commission will have a 'tricky' job in trying to get people to boost pension contributions but warned that hiking taxes could dissuade people from putting enough cash in pension pots. 'As we run into the Budget any discussion around reform of pension tax relief needs to be treated with care,' Morrissey said. 'Tinkering with these incentives could lead to people putting less away for their future which could cost the state more in the long run. 'Stability in pensions tax is essential if people are going to be confident that the money they put away today will be there for them decades into the future.' The Fabian Society, a left-wing think tank, said last year the government should create a flat rate of tax relief for individual and employer pension contributions for all tax bands or reduce the tax-free lump sum, which can currently be in excess of £250,000. Labour ministers ruled out scrapping the higher 40 per cent rate tax relief on pension contributions before the last Budget but it has so far refused to comment on suggestions pensions could be targeted. Pensions commission introduced to help boost savings The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) said some 45 per cent of workers were not putting any cash into their pensions, with an estimated 15m people not saving enough for retirement. The new commission is expected to look more closely at small savings trends across low-income workers in the private sector, the self-employed and people from Pakistani and Bangladeshi backgrounds. Its last version in 2006, which recommended auto-enrolment in workplace pensions, led to a rise in the number of eligible employee savings from 55 per cent in 2012 to 88 per cent now. Morrissey said members of the commission will have to consider how far earnings should be used for the 'here and now' versus for the future to prevent retirees from receiving a 'nasty shock' that hits their lifestyles. 'State pension and minimum auto-enrolment contributions should be set at a level that helps lower earners hit their target replacement rate and higher earners would be encouraged to contribute over and above these minimums to hit theirs.' Several City firms, including Fidelity International, have urged the commission to provide certainty on taxation as part of its efforts to encourage sensible saving. 'We encourage the government to take a holistic view, including pensions taxation in its considerations, to help shape a sustainable and effective policy framework for the future and avoid the constant speculation about pension taxation changes which risk causing real harm to consumers,' said James Carter, head of platform policy at Fidelity. Sign in to access your portfolio
