Rachel Reeves says higher taxes on wealthy ‘part of the story’ for November budget
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/oct/15/rachel-reeves-says-higher-taxes-on-wealthy-part-of-the-story-for-november-budget
Posted by Low_Map4314
Rachel Reeves says higher taxes on wealthy ‘part of the story’ for November budget
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/oct/15/rachel-reeves-says-higher-taxes-on-wealthy-part-of-the-story-for-november-budget
Posted by Low_Map4314
15 Comments
Watch when it turns out “wealthy” is everyone over 30k a year and below 100k on paye.
Rachel Reeves says higher taxes on ~~wealthy~~ high-earners ‘part of the story’ for November budget
Fixed it.
Also ‘part of the story’: Labour’s polling will not improve after tax rises
I can guarantee that this will raise less revenue than expected come next year.
Will “wealthy” turn out to be those who own a house, a car or have saved up some money for a pension?
*Definition of wealth is anyone earning over median wage, or who owns a house, or a car.
People will be furious if she raises taxes on the wealthy.
But they’d be more furious if she raised taxes on the poor. Or businesses. And absolutely furious if she cut spending on anything.
There’s literally nothing Reeves could propose which would improve the national finances and wouldn’t provoke a furious backlash. And that’s more damming of the British public than the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Wealthy is anyone with a job making a contribution to society.
It’s a fairly safe bet that her definition of “wealthy” is anyone earning more than minimum wage. The very people who have faced the worst of wage stagnation over the last 15 years.
They’re on about helping farmers with the IHT as they have realised it may have crippled the industry. The caveat is they are going to annihilate DEFRA so there will be no more subsidies. Give with one hand, take with the other
Knowing Labour wealthy will be someone who has a mortgage and earns more than £35k a year. 🤣
Realistically what are the options if cutting spending (pip, wfa, triple lock) would get voted down by her own party and cost her and Keir their jobs.
1. Break manefesto promises and raise, income tax, ee nics or vat.
2. Break commitments not to raise Corporation Tax or er nics (again).
3. Come after pension tax relief by reducing the annual allowance, removing the ability to salary sacrifice/charge er/ee nics and higher rate income tax to contributions.
My bet is in 3 with a sweetener of removing the cliff edges of annual allowance taper and childcare removal at 100k (maybe by pushing these to 150k)
We need to close loopholes that allow big corporations to funnel money, that was earned in Britain, out of the country to avoid tax.
Unfortunately, given the calibre of people currently in Westminster, of all parties, it’s unlikely that there’s anyone there with the ability, or courage, to do it!
Interested to see if this actually results in more money for the treasury in the long run or if people just salary sacrifice more or more extreme, don’t go for higher paying jobs.
The real problem here is the true effects of these constant stabs at people earning 100k won’t really be felt for 5/10 years by the economy.
The problem is that the people in the 10’s of millions to billions range often have 0 income, by design (or probably £12560 income)
When they become extremely rich they also have no assets
The richest are in >100% debt….. on paper
so what you have is a sliding scale of the wealthy, those in the low 10’s of millions probably still pay taxes in the multiple millions of pounds per year, but the billionaires often pay less than them
And the sliding scale works with ability to leave the UK, taking what tax they do pay away
So what will happen is Rachel from accounts will mess with that fine balance, and it will result in loss of tax revenue, not gain. As happened last year. So she will target those lower down the chain, now she is taxing those with a couple of million. They fold their companies and effectively retire, erasing thousands of jobs in the process, destroying tax revenues. So she shifts further down, back to the £100k people that cant avoid the taxes. unfortunately she is already taxing people on 100k >100%….. so she heads further down and ends up at the 50k range, where she bumps tax up by 3%
This is how “Wealth taxes” will end up costing the average man 3%