← Back to the feed

Target pensions or welfare, not banks, IMF tells John Healey

The Guardian ·

The IMF has urged John Healey to focus on pension and welfare spending cuts rather than raising taxes on banks in the upcoming budget. Its view is that Britain already has a high tax burden, while supporters of a bank tax argue lenders can afford to contribute more after strong profits and taxpayer support during the financial crisis.

IMF deputy director Helge Berger said the government could also consider property tax or VAT reform if it needs more revenue, and pointed to the pensions triple lock and better targeting of social benefits. UK Finance says reversing a cut to the bank surcharge could leave annual GDP £1.2bn lower by 2029-30 and reduce lending by £10.4bn; TUC analysis says the cut has cost the Treasury £6bn over three years. The four largest UK banks reported £29.2bn in profits in the first half of the year, while former banker Philip Augar said a moderate tax rise could raise £2bn to £3bn annually.

  • IMF urges pension and welfare savings over bank taxes.
  • UK Finance warns higher levies could reduce lending and GDP.
  • The four biggest banks made £29.2bn in half-year profits.

Both sides, in good faith

The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.

The case for

The IMF’s case is that Britain already has a high tax burden, so further raising taxes on banks could discourage lending and weigh on economic growth. If the budget needs savings or revenue, restraining pension and welfare spending, better targeting benefits, or reforming property tax or VAT may be more sustainable ways to protect public finances.

The case against

Banks have reported substantial profits, and advocates of a higher bank tax argue that lenders can afford a larger contribution, particularly given past taxpayer support during the financial crisis. They also point to estimates that restoring the surcharge cut has cost the Treasury £6bn over three years, while a moderate rise could raise £2bn to £3bn annually, and argue that pensioners and welfare recipients should not bear the main burden of budget savings.

Business UK World

Read the full article at the source →

Cookie-free view counts · Privacy choices

We count page views to improve this website, including before you choose optional analytics. This counter keeps only a daily total: no visitor IDs, page addresses or browsing histories. It uses no tracking cookies and sends no data to Google or Microsoft. Optional analytics add richer reports if you accept them.

Your choice is remembered using a preference cookie. Rejecting analytics, Do Not Track and Global Privacy Control also stop this counter. Ordinary server access logs are separate.