Andy Burnham is to launch a £38 billion tax raid on the wealthy to fund a spending spree in office, analysis by Reform UK has found – taking Labour’s total tax increases to more than £100 billion a year. The Telegraph has the story.
A report into the Prime Minister-in-waiting’s pledges found Burnham would bring Labour’s total increase in taxation from around £66 billion to more than £100 billion a year.
This includes promises of a ‘care levy’ of up to 10% of the value of estates after death, reforming the rates of capital gains tax (CGT) and imposing National Insurance on landlords’ rental income.
Implementing a torrent of new taxes not mentioned in Labour’s 2024 manifesto will increase pressure on Burnham to call an early election. He is due to be elected unopposed as Labour leader and Prime Minister on Friday.
Robert Jenrick, Reform’s Economy Spokesman, said: “Andy Burnham has spent 20 years reaching for other people’s money – a death tax on family homes, a graduate tax on young people getting their first pay cheque, a £14 billion raid on savings and investment and new levies on everything from your parking space at work to your weekend away.
“Taken together with Rachel Reeves’s record, Labour could well raise more than £100 billion a year of tax rises. If Mr Burnham disputes this, the remedy is simple: rule these 10 taxes out, by name, today.”
The UK already has its highest tax burden on record, following raids by Rachel Reeves on employer National Insurance contributions, new VAT on private schools and a freeze to income tax thresholds.
Burnham has declined to set out detailed tax plans ahead of his first Budget but has pledged to remain within Labour’s fiscal rules, which require debt to be falling as a percentage of GDP.
However, he is considering appointing Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, as his Chancellor after taking office on July 20th, despite Labour MPs urging him to appoint a less controversial and more centrist figure like Wes Streeting or Shabana Mahmood.
On top of this, Burnham has hinted at a range of expensive spending plans that will require funding from taxation.
He has suggested he would support increasing the top rate of tax to 50% for the highest earners, which would amount to a breach of Labour’s 2024 manifesto not to raise income tax.
He has also refused to rule out a range of tax changes, including aligning CGT with income tax, which he said earlier this month he would “want to look at”.
Burnham is also considering lowering the threshold of Reeves’s ‘mansion tax’ on properties worth more than £2 million to just £1.5 million, which would drag many homeowners in London and the South East into higher rates of council tax.
A levy on landlords’ rental income would raise around £3 billion a year, according to the Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR), although economists have warned the policy would lead to a restriction in the housing supply and higher rents for tenants.
Other suggestions Burnham has previously supported include a graduate tax to replace student loans, higher gambling duties, a workplace parking levy and greater powers for mayors to charge tourists for overnight stays.
In total, Reform said the policies would bring the tax increases from Sir Keir Starmer and Burnham’s governments to £104 billion, with £38 billion of increases from the new administration alone.
Worth reading in full.
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
It’s interesting to note that Jenrick hasn’t asked where the reduction proposals in public spending are… we surely need a 20% min across the board cut as a starting point, then we won’t need to tax more at all…
They have an awful lot of votes they need to buy and they don’t come cheap.
The UK finances being run by the IMF becomes more attractive every week.
£38bn will last them about 6 weeks of black holes.
That long?
Agreed – they’ll spaff it up the wall in no time…. Classic socialists – spend without considering the long term implications… where are the cuts?
So let us understand this. If you have a mortgage, or indeed have finished paying for the home you own, which you have done or are doing out of your already taxed income. If you live in a 2 bedroom semi in London you will be paying every year over and above your mortgage etc, a large sum of money you will have to find out of already taxed income to hand over to Burnham and co so they can use it to finance their client state.
If you want to sell your house and get out of the Country, you cannot because nobody wants to have that financial burden around their neck every year.
What happens if you don’t have the cash to pay? will Burnham make you sell your home?or will as I suspect add it to your death duties so essentially your estate becomes the Government’s when you die.
This is the WEF dream, the Communists utopia. You will own nothing and be happy.
Do you believe that Burnham has even though this through? Prices on houses in the SouthEast will drop like a stone, sending many into Negative equity, this will domino all the way down.… Read more »
They are thick communists.
All communists are thick unless they are in control. You know, more equal than others.
With all the additional talk of a proposed property tax to replace our current council tax, I’m interested to know how the value of a property will be calculated. Will the Government decide on a “fair” value for a property, based on its own calculations, or will it use a realistic market value? Market values will almost certainly fall as buyers beat prices down in an attempt to evade the “mansion tax”, but would the new owners find themselves still being clobbered because the government thinks the property is worth more than they actually paid for it?
But, whatever is decided, I have a problem with any tax levied on assets, especially the family home. Imagine the widow who still lives in a modest family home in London or the southeast. What proportion of her pension will be taken in taxes, compared with a similar person living in County Durham, for example? Presumably the aim is to uproot people who are happily settled in a home that’s full of memories, surrounded by their treasured possessions and a supportive network of friends and neighbours, and force them to move away and into smaller properties to free up larger housing stock for… Read more »