To pay for defence and transport project spending increases, the Government could put tax reliefs and exemptions on the chopping block, say leading audit, tax and business advisory firm, Blick Rothenberg.
The Prime Minister has announced a ยฃ6 billion defence spending package for the Armed Forces to be โwar readiness.โ
Robert Salter, a director at the firm, said, โThe Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced an increase in the UKโs defence budget, and the Chancellor, Rachel Reeves has said there will be an increase in transport project spending. But the money has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is taxes.
ย โThe Government has a few options when it comes to generating a higher tax take. One option is to reduce tax relief on pensions. Per HM Treasury, pensions tax relief is officially costing the Govt ca. ยฃ48bn per annum.
โTo lower this cost, they could reduce the 25% lump sum by bringing it down to say 20% or keep the headline 25% rate but limiting the value of the lump sum to ยฃ75k or less.
โThose with total pension savings of ยฃ300k or less wouldnโt be impacted and the Government could argue that the change is only targeting the โwealthy.โ Another option is ceasing to provide pensions tax relief at a taxpayerโs marginal tax rate which is often 40% or 45% and provide relief at only a fixed rate of say 25%.โ
He added, โIn terms of Inheritance Tax (IHT) the Government could further restrict the IHT thresholds or Potentially Exempt Transfers (PETs).
โUnder the present rules, if you give an item away 7+ years before you die, it may be a PET and IHT may not be due on it.ย This timeframe could be increased to say 10 years or the IHT rates which apply on PETs which are given away between 3 and 7 years before someone dies could be increased.
โFor example, if you give a PET away and die 3-4 years after that transfer, the IHT due on the gift is presently 32% and this might be increased to say 36%. However, IHT only raises ca. ยฃ6-ยฃ7bn per annum at present, and changing the PET rules might not make a massive difference to the overall tax take.
โAnother option is to end the โtemporaryโ 5p per litre cut to fuel duty, which was introduced in 2022, and was extended in Ms Reevesโs first budget. It is now due to end in March โ26 and may now come to an end. The โtemporary easementโ is presently costing ca. ยฃ2bn per annum.
โBut the Government could go further and raised it by say 10p per litre, which would potentially raise ยฃ4bn. But practically, the Government needs to look at alternative options for raising revenue from motorists, as fuel duty will be coming down over the next few years, as more and more people move to e-vehicles or at least hybrids.โ
โFuel duty presently brings in ca. ยฃ25bn per annum, so it is still a significant source of receipts for the Government. But the risk is that raising fuel duty too sharply could accelerate the move to e-vehicles before the Government can put in alternative, practical plans to raise equivalent revenues from things like road tolls.โ
โFinally the Government could raise corporate tax. A 3p rise that increases the basic rate to 28% could bring in ca. ยฃ10bn – ยฃ12bn. But this would be against the Labour Partyโs manifesto, and it would also be against their โopen for businessโ comments. However, it might seem easier for Labour to do politically than raising either any of VAT, employee NICs or income tax.โ
Leave a Comment