Labour-embedded think-tank calls for ‘Budget that will require significant tax increases’

Does Resolution Foundation’s report yesterday presage major tax pain for millions of us?

Montage © Facts4EU.Org

“Significant tax rises will be needed… to send a clear signal that the UK’s public finances are under control.”

Yesterday a think-tank which strongly influences Sir Keir Starmer and his government published its thoughts on Rachel Reeves’ second budget, expected in late November. The report, entitled ‘Call of duties - Revenue and reform for Autumn Budget 2025’ looks at the expected ‘black hole’ in her finances, and seeks to fill this by tax increases.

If any of this makes it into Rachel Reeves’ budget, it will affect many readers in their pockets. Our report today is a quick, summary response and covers:

Highly-influential Labour think-tank and its recommendations of massive tax rises

Rachel Reeves’ missing billions
The Resolution Foundation think-tank and its influence
Its overall ideology and consequent recommendations

1. Rachel Reeves’ missing billions

In summary, it appears that the Chancellor is going to be faced with three irreconcilable problems.

Firstly, Government spending is too high and is growing fast. The attempt by the Prime Minister to row back in a very small way on spending collapsed in a farce, when his backbench revolt forced him to U-turn completely.

This was obviously disastrous for his Chancellor, leaving her even less room for manoeuvre.

The proposals were modest and might have saved around £5bn. Even this came nowhere near what is required, but nevertheless it caused uproar amongst his Parliamentary colleagues.

Secondly, government revenues were less than expected in the latest figures, proving once again that the OBR is not fit to forecast and not fit for purpose. There are many reasons for this shortfall, but it can be said that the overall thrust of government policies have made the UK No.1 in the world for its exodus of millionaires. This is not a record that anyone would want to hold. The policies have also made employers reluctant to take on staff and to invest. The exception is the public sector, where employment continues apace.

Thirdly, growth is generally predicated on improvements in efficiency and productivity. The opposite has been the case. Once again, the public sector has proved itself to be the worst in this regard and this is a subject we will return to. It must be remembered that growth is the “No.1 priority” of Sir Keir Starmer’s government, as he has repeatedly told us from the beginning of his tenure at No.10.

2. The Resolution Foundation think-tank and its influence

“The Resolution Foundation is an independent think-tank dedicated to lifting living standards in the UK. We focus particularly on households with low and middle incomes; those on low pay or in precarious work…”
- The Resolution Foundation website, 24 Sept 2025

Ruth Curtice, Chief Executive, was previously Director of Fiscal Policy at HM Treasury where she worked for over 15 years. Her predecessor for the last nine years was Torsten Bell MP, the Pensions Minister. Then we have Minouche Shafik, a former Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, and now economic adviser at No.10, who co-chaired the Foundation’s ‘’Economy 2030’ Inquiry.

The list goes on. There’s Dan Tomlinson MP (Treasury Minister) who was a former economist at Resolution, and Vidhya Alakeson, the Deputy Chief of Staff in Downing Street and former Deputy Chief Executive at… yes, you guessed it. In summary, there is very clear linkage between the Foundation, the Labour Party and Labour Government, and the Trades Unions.

3. Its overall ideology and consequent recommendations

The Foundation is staffed by those who are clearly disposed to left-wing policies and it makes no secret of this. Accordingly, it looks for ways to tax the ‘rich’ to distribute more to ‘the poor’.

The Foundations latest report predicts “a Budget that will require significant tax increases”. This does of course fly in the face of the cast-iron promises of both Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves that their policies would require no tax rises at all. This promise was already effectively broken in the first budget last year. This time it is going to be very difficult indeed for the Chancellor to hide tax increases by pretending they are something else, or are ‘offset’ in some way.

Finally we quote from the Resolution Foundation’s latest report again

“The Foundation says that current market uncertainty means the Chancellor will need to send a decisive signal that she is prepared to take tough decisions to meet her fiscal rules. Taken together, this is likely to require tax rises of at least £20 billion a year by 2029-30.”
- Resolution Foundation report, 23 Sept 2025

They go on to describe how certain groups should be hit, including “pensioners, landlords and the self-employed”. Adam Corlett, Principal Economist at the Resolution Foundation, said:

“Policy U-turns, higher borrowing costs and lower productivity growth mean that the Chancellor will need to act to avoid borrowing costs rising even further this autumn. Significant tax rises will be needed for the Chancellor to send a clear signal that the UK’s public finances are under control.”
- Resolution Foundation report, 23 Sept 2025

Observations

A think-tank report ahead of a budget would not normally attract our attention in this way, but when that think-tank is the Resolution Foundation we take a little more notice. The reason is simple. This well-funded Foundation swaps people with government (or at least the Civil Service) all the time. Two current Ministers (one now in the Treasury) held senior positions there and two of its former senior people hold significant positions in No.10. That's a lot of influence for one organisation to have been able to get placed in government.

A lot can happen between now and whenever Rachel Reeves delivers her budget. It does now seem to be almost certain, however, that the Chancellor will have to break her promises to a very significant degree, and raise taxes to pain thresholds in some cases. The alternative - which we would infinitely prefer - would be to slash government spending, but this is something Labour's backbenchers will not allow its leadership to do.

Please, please help us to carry on our vital work in defence of independence, sovereignty, democracy and freedom by donating today. Thank you.

[ Sources: Resolution Foundation ] Politicians and journalists can contact us for details, as ever.

Brexit Facts4EU.Org, Wed 23 Sept 2025

Click here to go to our news headlines

Please scroll down to COMMENT on the above article.
And don't forget actually to post your message after you have previewed it!

Something to say about this? Scroll down for reader comments

Since before the EU Referendum, Brexit Facts4EU.Org
has been the most prolific researcher and publisher of Brexit facts in the world.

Supported by MPs, MEPs, & other groups, our work has impact.

We think facts matter. Please donate today, so that we can continue to ensure a clean Brexit is finally delivered.

Any credit card user

Quick One-off

From £5 - £1,000

Monthly

From £3 per month

Paypal Users Only - Choose amount first

Quick One-off

Monthly

PLEASE NOTE IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT : You can write your comment under any existing comments below. After you have clicked to preview your comment, you MUST then click on the CAPTCHA system and send you comment, for it to be published. Thank you!

Reader Comments 10

1. Have You Wondered , Wednesday, September 24, 2025, 07:12:

.
Is it immoral for Govt. to interminably squeeze those at the bottom end of the economic ladder? Instead of targeting pensioners and those at the bottom end of the ladder will Starmer and Reeves look at settling the UK debts by perhaps sequestrating the £850bn hidden in UK offshore accounts (taxjustice.uk), that no Govt. wants to investigate, until the money is proven to be legal and taxed? Remember this when you pay your tax that you are subsidising these accounts.
.
Instead they are hounding those at the bottom end of the economic ladder, the easy pickings, who have virtually no influence and do not have the benefit of a 'golden passport'. They made their profits in the UK and then clear off leaving an unanswered tax burden to others. They are abrogating their tax responsibilities to the less well off.
.
That's £850bn the best part of a Trillion quid that is possibly illegal and not taxed.
.
Imagine the tax possibly missed on just the £850bn at 20% is £170bn a year?
.
Why not tax at 40% since this money is obviously made by higher rate tax payers?
.
That'd set the UK on a good footing? What's not to like?
.
Starmer and Reeves are looking at the wrong section of society to balance the books.
.

2. Mr Sceptic , Wednesday, September 24, 2025, 07:18:

Brexit seems to have required the recruitment of many 10s of thousands of civil servants to carry out all centralised functions previously done by the EU. The expansion of the civil service workforce was driven by the need to take on regulatory responsibilities previously handled by EU institutions and additional border control requirements.
New UK institutions created by Boris since Brexit are the OEP, the TRA, Dept for Business &Trade and the SAU. Major expansions occurred in HMRC, FCA/PRA, ICO and Defra. (Defra has nearly doubled since Brexit).
In 2016, the civil service workforce was 384,000. As of Q1 2025, there were 516,455 FTE civil servants. By comparison, the EU employs 60,000 staff across its various institutions.
Was the assumption prior to the 2016 referendum that the UK taxpayer would not be paying for these Brexit costs?

3. Have You Wondered , Wednesday, September 24, 2025, 07:35:

2. Mr Sceptic.
.
" the EU employs 60,000 staff across its various institutions." Is that a fair comparison bearing in mind that the EU member nations then each have a civil service to impliment those decisions of the 60,000?
.

4. Mr Sceptic , Wednesday, September 24, 2025, 08:12:

3 Have You Not Wondered why the UK civil service has expanded by 35% since the Brexit referendum, while other European countries maintained more stable or modest growing public sector workforces?
And Have You Not Wondered if the UK taxpayer is paying for these Brexit costs?

5. Have You Wondered , Wednesday, September 24, 2025, 08:46:

.
Talking of tax - Here's something we no longer have to pay for that offsets the costs - todays news: Headline: "Why do EU officials in Brussels pay no tax?" (not quite true - 8% basic)
.
As a talking point, does this contravene ECHR Commission. Article 14: Protection from discrimination: This occurs when a rule or policy, supposedly applying to everyone equally, actually works to the disadvantage of one or more groups.
.
I'm off to Brussels !! "Before tax, the 'basic monthly salary' of an EU civil servant ranges from a starting income €2,537.59 to €25,229.29 for the very few highest earners."
.
€2,537.59 a month for starters !! and a 'gold plated' pension - mired in controversy:
.
Headline: "Aside from the ethical questions of using European taxpayer money to invest in the arms industry to finance an MEP pension fund, the European Parliament will likely have to squeeze some €400m from the public for its bailout. "
Headline:Luxury pension for MEPs remains mired in secrecy
Headline:MEP luxury pension held corporate assets in tax havens
.
Again - Reference my oft quoted mantra:
Why does the UK (or any other nation) need another level of corruption and malfeasance above that which the UK has already?
.

6. Have You Wondered , Wednesday, September 24, 2025, 08:56:

.
4. Mr Sceptic
.
"the UK civil service has expanded by 35% " Indeed. Expect that to drastically reduce when Reform get elected.
.
However, Via ChatGPT: Based on the available evidence, we can sketch a plausible model estimate:
.
Of the ~ 132,000 growth since 2016, perhaps 30‑40% (~ 40,000‑55,000) are clearly Brexit‑driven: new regulatory, trade, customs, immigration, legal, compliance roles created because functions moved inhouse from EU bodies, etc.
.
Another 30‑45% (~ 40,000‑60,000) appear to be due to COVID‑19 or pandemic‑related response.
.
The remaining 20‑30% (~ 25,000‑40,000) likely come from other drivers: responding to operational pressures (asylum, immigration, prison/probation service), policy expansion, administrative growth, governmental reorganisations, grade inflation etc.
.
So - offset that against paying for the EU vast salaries and pensions - not so bad? Even better when Reform sit on the front bench?
.

7. KB , Wednesday, September 24, 2025, 10:32:

The rumour is that it is Torsten Bell writing the next budget, not Rachel from Complaints.
If true, what you need to look out for is not so much tax increases on workers but new taxes for pensioners and the end of the triple lock on the state pension.
You could see national insurance imposed on employer pensions and a wealth tax on those pensioners seen to be living in houses worth a lot of money.
The younger generation feel particularly aggrieved that the current pensioners have seen their house value go through the roof with no effort required.
Pensioners are now seen as wealthy, not poor.
The Resolution Foundation uses the terms "intergenerational fairness" and "intergenerational justice" a lot in its publications.
So be warned, if TB is in charge this is what is coming.

8. Mr Sceptic , Wednesday, September 24, 2025, 14:06:

7 KB … I suppose someone must pay the extra cost associated with expanding the civil service workforce by 35% to take on regulatory responsibilities previously handled by EU institutions?

9. Jamie , Wednesday, September 24, 2025, 14:49:

8 Sceptic. Brexit was not about money. Most Britons understand they have to pay more tax for having our sovereignty back and that it takes some time for the UK to start seizing the opportunities that Brexit offers.
We are in it for the long run,

10. NH , Wednesday, September 24, 2025, 15:24:

8. Sceptic
As usual you are just making childish comments. In 2009 (Last time we had a Labour Government) there were 492,480 civil servants today there are just over 5% more despite a huge increase in the population. The number declined after 2009 because Labour policies resulted in in Banking collapse and left the next Government with a huge deficit so they had to cut costs. Productivity in the Civil Service has not increased for 30 years despite huge increases in technology. Only a small number of the increase in the civil service since Brexit have been for permanent roles relating to trade or other Brexit changes. Unfortunately poor quality Governments in recent years has resulted in a bloated unproductive Civil Service.

Add comment:

Please note: Your email address is never published unless you choose to enter it.