Andy Burnham's government has declined to rule out increasing bank taxes in its upcoming budget. This comes as lenders report bumper profits, prompting speculation about higher taxation on the sector.
The Yes side carried the vote, 105 to 78, but this was no confident tax-and-spend chorus. Its case arrived qualified and defensive, while No voters supplied most of the argument and framed the proposal as a charge that would return to households.
The floor’s strongest Yes case argued for targeting “some highly profitable business sectors”, including banks, rather than individuals or small firms. Another Yes voter offered a more unexpected mechanism: higher taxes could push banks towards “more lending”, though only with moderation around what counts as safe lending.
No voters were more numerous and their objections were tightly aligned. The most-respected refrain was that “all new/increased taxes on companies/banks will be paid by at the end by consumers”, while another called the measure “stealth taxes” and said the government should stop spending; the two sides were arguing not only about banks, but about whether the state’s spending was legitimate in the first place.
That places the result inside the live tax-and-spend argument: bumper bank profits made the sector an attractive target, while opponents saw a politically convenient levy that would obscure wider choices on expenditure and tax simplicity. One voter called the move “something to tax” for an “oversized public sector”; another said public services were “a legitimate expenditure”.
The chamber voted for the tax, but the losing side did most of the speaking — and nearly all of it arrived with the same warning attached: the bill would not stay with the banks.
“If I had known a "yes" would be interpreted as "tax and spend" I would've voted "no". In isolation, I believe that some highly profitable business sectors, including banking and internet platforms should be taxed more, in preference to, for example, taxing individuals or small businesses. The question also stated that taxation would be for "public services", which is a legitimate expenditure. We ”
YES case · UrbanFox · 2 respects
“1. All new/increased taxes on companies/banks will be paid by at the end by consumers. 2. Government rathe that search for increased income should focus on cutting spending. 3. Taxes should be simple, ideally one tax for all, same rate unavoidable (like sale tax).”
NO case · Slawomir · 2 respects
Should Capital Gains Tax (CGT) be raised to up to 45% to fund higher income tax personal allowances?
Economy · 1,198 votes · 67% voted No
Should the UK reintroduce VAT-free shopping for international tourists?
Economy · 1,197 votes · 50% voted Yes
Should all UK utilities be nationalised, including water, electricity, and gas?
Economy · 961 votes · 60% voted Yes
Should the UK have one rate of income tax for all citizens?
Economy · 912 votes · 70% voted No
Should the UK introduce a wealth “exit” tax for individuals leaving the country?
Economy · 879 votes · 60% voted No
Should the UK Government favour reducing public spending rather than raising taxes?
Economy · 826 votes · 70% voted Yes
Should England's mayors have powers to charge uncapped levies on business overnight stays?
Economy · 727 votes · 73% voted No
Should married couples be taxed jointly, sharing their allowances and tax bands?
Economy · 695 votes · 53% voted Yes
7 Opinions
Banks would just pass the charge on to us. Stealth taxes are unhelpful. He needs to stop spending.
If I had known a "yes" would be interpreted as "tax and spend" I would've voted "no". In isolation, I believe that some highly profitable business sectors, including banking and internet platforms should be taxed more, in preference to, for example, taxing individuals or small businesses. The question also stated that taxation would be for "public services", which is a legitimate expenditure. We should not, for example, be increasing any taxes at all to pay for welfare.
Can relocate anywhere in world abd you will lose more than you gain. Success breeds employment and investment, both paying tax !!
Identifying a group to be hated & thus suffer a punishment is as old as the hills. UK’s problem is excessive expenditure much of it wasted & corrupt & unfair taxation. Superficially attractive taxes on banks are seen to be popular & politically risk free & this vote supports this. We need a simple tax system with many taxes eliminated as they are just spiteful ideological whims of the left. Bank taxes can form part of a new regime based on fairness not envy
Labour snuffling around again for something to tax, to spend on their oversized public sector. It's embarrassing that this move is all they ever had.
Banks will stimulate more lending to be able to account for it, meaning it may get the economy moving a bit better, and more than likely allowing people who don't have access to lending for say a mortgage to gain access to the market. Would need some moderation though on what 'safe lending' looks like to account for it.
1. All new/increased taxes on companies/banks will be paid by at the end by consumers. 2. Government rathe that search for increased income should focus on cutting spending. 3. Taxes should be simple, ideally one tax for all, same rate unavoidable (like sale tax).