For the first time in 14 years, it was a Labour chancellor who delivered the UK budget. And for the first time ever, that chancellor was a woman. But Rachel Reeves faces an almighty task: plugging a £40 billion spending gap in the knowledge that pre-election promises not to raise the main taxes are still fresh in people’s memories.
Growth was the buzzword of the election campaign – Reeves now had to lay her cards on the table. So here’s what our panel of experts made of the plans:
More challenges for employers and small businesses
Shampa Roy-Mukherjee, Associate Professor in Economics, University of East London
The budget introduces £40 billion in tax hikes and, in some areas, spending cuts that will put pressure on the economy and business in particular. But it also reflects the government’s focus on economic growth, with policies intended to stabilise finances while addressing some of the concerns of small businesses.
The chancellor has retained her commitment to preserve the rates of income tax, employee national insurance and VAT. But a notable change is the increase in employers’ national insurance contributions (NICs) from 13.8% to 15%.
There was also a reduction in the secondary threshold, which is the amount at which the employer starts paying NI on each employee, from £9,100 to £5,000. Altogether this will raise £25 billion annually but will significantly impact many businesses that will now face higher wage bills.
The national living wage is also rising by 6.7% to £12.21 per hour in April 2025, boosting incomes for about three million workers but again increasing costs for many businesses. These rising taxes and wage increases, alongside incoming employment regulations, will strain businesses, particularly in sectors with high labour demands.
To offset some of these pressures, the employment allowance, which allows some smaller employers to reduce their NICs, has been raised from £5,000 to £10,500. The chancellor said that over 1 million employers will not see their NICs bill rise as a result.
Small businesses in retail, hospitality and leisure, where profits have been hit as consumers struggle with the cost of living, will benefit from a 40% business rate relief on properties up to £110,000. Other supportive measures include a continued freeze on fuel duty, which will aid logistics and transport costs. Corporation tax remains fixed at 25%.
Higher wages for three million, but it could cost more to get the bus to work
Rachel Scarfe, Lecturer in Economics, University of Stirling
The biggest change for those on low incomes was an increase in the national minimum wage (for 18 to 20-year-olds) of 16.3%, from £8.60 to £10 an hour, and an increase in the national living wage (for employees aged 21 and over) of 6.7%, from £11.44 to £12.21, from April 2025. This will lead to a pay rise for more than 3 million workers.
Business associations warn that this will cause job losses, particularly in hospitality and the care sector, where many employees earn the minimum wage. But a large body of research has not found a negative effect of minimum wages on employment.
There is some evidence that earlier minimum wage rises caused an increase in the number of zero-hours contracts in social care, as firms tried other ways to reduce wages. However, the new employment rights bill introduced earlier in October would limit the use of zero-hours contracts in this scenario.
The budget could have an indirect effect on pay packets though. The effect of the change to employer NICs will be greater in sectors with more low-paid workers, such as hospitality, and employer associations have warned that it will risk jobs. There is also some evidence that in the long term, firms pass some of these costs on to employees by reducing their wages.
However, the minimum wage increase will reduce the capacity for firms to reduce wages. And any long-term effect would also be offset by lower income taxes that will come after 2028 when the chancellor has said she will increase the threshold at which people starting paying tax.
So if wages and profits fall because of increased contributions, then the amount Reeves raises will be lower than expected, because income and corporation tax receipts will be hit.
Another indirect factor affecting incomes is the cost of getting to work. The fuel duty freeze will continue, but the bus fare cap will increase from £2 to £3. Lower-paid workers and jobseekers are much more likely to use the bus than those with higher incomes, who are more likely to drive, but the cost of bus travel increased much more than the cost of train travel or petrol over the last parliament.
The fare cap reversed some of this increase, and some evidence shows that it led to more people travelling by bus. But the new £3 cap will only last until the end of 2025, which may be too soon to see much effect.
Taxing times for the wealthy
Jonquil Lowe, Senior Lecturer in Economics and Personal Finance, The Open University
As expected, the budget targeted several wealth taxes, including capital gains tax (CGT), which is charged on profits you make when you “dispose of” (sell or give away) an asset. The first slice of such profits (£3,000 in 2024-25) is tax-free. Profit above that is added to your income to determine what rate will apply: a lower rate for profit covered by the basic income tax rate band and a higher rate on anything more.
Reeves announced that CGT rates on financial assets – things like shares – will immediately increase from 10% to 18% (for the lower rate) and from 18% to 24% (for the higher rate). Financial assets account for around 85% of all disposals within the scope of CGT, but only around 350,000 people a year pay the tax.
This brings the rates on financial assets into line with residential property, such as a second home. (There is no CGT when you sell or give away your only or main home.) But this still leaves wealth taxed less heavily than income.
The government says it is committed to tackling the UK’s housing shortage. So to deter multiple home ownership, it has raised stamp duty for people buying a second (or third or fourth) home. Purchases completed will now incur an extra 5% tax (currently 3%) over and above the normal stamp duty rates.
There were also changes to inheritance tax (IHT). Pension savings left unused at death have in recent years been passed on tax free. But from April 2027, the savings will count as part of the estate and be subject to IHT at a rate of up to 40%.
The first slice of the estate a person leaves, called the nil-rate band, is IHT-free, and that band has been frozen at £325,000 since 2010. Reeves extended the freeze until April 2030.
As a result of these changes, the government expects almost 6% of estates to pay IHT this year, up from fewer than 5% in recent years. People in London and the south east are more likely to be IHT-payers, largely due to higher property values in those areas.
A downpayment on growth – but probably not quickly
Linda Yueh, Adjunct Professor of Economics, University of Oxford
The chancellor declared that the government will “invest, invest, invest”. This is an important enabler of economic growth.
But, the country’s creditors need reassuring, so Reeves also announced two new fiscal rules that aim to achieve that balance of allowing the government to borrow to invest (and generate growth), but not to pay for day-to-day spending.
Specifically, the investment rule permits borrowing to invest and the stability rule requires day-to-day spending to be paid for by taxes. Both rules support the government’s growth aims while trying to reassure the country’s creditors that the borrowing will pay off by generating future growth – and also higher tax receipts with which to repay that borrowing.
But spending watchdog the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has downgraded the UK’s GDP growth outlook from 2% to 1.8% in 2026, and to 1.5% in 2027 and 2028. The OBR’s forecast of slower growth highlights the impact of the £40 billion of tax increases, which dampens economic activity.
This underscores the government’s challenge of investing to grow while at the same having to raise taxes to balance the books when it comes to its daily spending. In particular, the OBR’s assessment of slowing growth towards the middle of this parliament raises questions about how long it will take for the investment-fuelled growth to materialise.
It may be that five years is still too short a period. Many physical investments require planning and those reforms could also take a while. Moreover, getting investment projects under way requires scoping, and private investors will want time to assess before joining the government in energy projects.
But this budget is certainly a start on a much-needed growth strategy.
Good news on public investment – emerging industries could benefit
Phil Tomlinson, Professor of Industrial Strategy, University of Bath
The key budget change related to the chancellor’s fiscal rules. By redefining how public debt is calculated, Reeves has been able to increase public investment by around £100 billion. The new fiscal rules have gone not as far as some economists have advocated – but they are a welcome step in the right direction.
Investment was the core focus of the budget. For decades, the UK has suffered from low investment and weak productivity compared to other leading economies. Since 1990, the UK’s investment gap with the average across rich countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has been around £35 billion a year – the UK now ranks 28th of 31 OECD countries on business investment. British workers are using outdated kit and so are less productive. This has meant a stagnant economy and lower living standards.
So, the budget’s plans to boost investment in the UK’s crumbling infrastructure and public services and to support the new industrial strategy are a positive move. The latter should see additional funding to support emerging tech industries, such as artificial intelligence, cyber and clean energy. And this public investment should “crowd in” additional private investment.
In the long run, these investments should pay for themselves. For instance, the Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that a sustained increase in public investment of 1% of GDP increases that GDP by 0.5% after five years and more than 2% after ten to 15 years.
The rise in employer national insurance contributions will increase business’s operating costs, especially those in the care and hospitality sectors. But paradoxically, in the long run, it may encourage some businesses (in sectors where it is feasible) to invest in new labour-saving capital equipment.
Read more: Rachel Reeves is the UK's first female chancellor. Here's why that's so significant
The NHS gets a cash injection – but it may not go that far
Karen Bloor, Professor of Health Economics and Policy, University of York
Amid all the gloomy pre-budget talk of tough choices and economic problems, would the government’s plans to improve the NHS cheer up the country (England, at least)? Not entirely.
On the plus side, the chancellor promised a generous spending increase of £22.6 billion in the year 2025 to 2026, with £3.1 billion on capital investment. But solving the problems of the NHS is not just about money, and there will be difficult decisions to come.
Meanwhile, increases in employers’ national insurance contributions, while raising funds, will also have a big impact on the NHS, which employs over 1.5 million people. So the additional spending may be less than it appears.
The new government has said it has three main priorities for healthcare in England: moving care from hospitals to the community, moving resources from treatment to prevention, and changing systems from analogue to digital. None of these ideas are new, and there are good reasons why they haven’t happened already.
Expanding primary and community care often does not translate into reduced demand for hospital services – in fact, it can do the opposite, by uncovering previously unmet needs. And successive governments have failed to address long-standing problems in social care, which is crucial to addressing pressures on the NHS. A successful NHS means people living longer, but often with long-term health problems.
Returns on investment in preventing illness can be substantial, but they vary widely, and can be difficult to achieve. This is particularly true when it comes to interventions needing individual behaviour change, such as increasing exercise or cutting down on alcohol. Even when clearly positive, they take a very long time to generate cost savings.
And there are other aspects of the chancellor’s plans which could arguably harm public health. Abolition of winter fuel payments for example, could affect the health of older people on low incomes.
Rising bus fares could affect people’s ability to attend appointments, and the controversial two-child benefit cap, which can affect child health remains in place.
Finally, while technology should improve the efficiency of services, people need care from people. Capital investment – in scanners, radiotherapy machines and diagnostics – will need to be matched by the cost of the professionals who operate them and interpret their findings.
Karen Bloor receives funding from the NIHR policy research programme to conduct responsive analysis for the Department of Health and Social Care,
Phil Tomlinson receives funding from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) for Made Smarter Innovation: Centre for People-Led Digitalisation.
Rachel Scarfe is a member of the Labour Party.
Jonquil Lowe, Linda Yueh, and Shampa Roy-Mukherjee do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
