Joe Adams

Joe Adams Daily Actions, Compound To Real Results.

Fuel duty has an unusual history in UK tax policy. Since 2011, successive governments of every political colour have ann...
06/09/2026

Fuel duty has an unusual history in UK tax policy. Since 2011, successive governments of every political colour have announced planned fuel duty increases in their Budget forecasts, only to cancel or freeze them at the actual fiscal event that followed. A temporary 5p per litre cut introduced in 2022 has been repeatedly extended well beyond its original planned end date. The pattern has become so consistent that the OBR itself documents it as a recurring feature of UK fiscal policy, planned rises that essentially never happen.

The current plan, confirmed in May 2026, breaks from that pattern in a specific way. Fuel duty will remain frozen until September 2026, but a 3p per litre rise is planned for January 2027, followed by RPI uprating from April 2027 onward, meaning fuel duty would then rise automatically each year in line with inflation rather than requiring a fresh political decision every single Budget.

The government has also introduced a "fuel finder" tool designed to help drivers locate the cheapest fuel prices in their area, projected to save the average household around £40 a year, a measure clearly intended to soften the impact of the coming rise.

The fiscal argument for finally allowing fuel duty to rise is straightforward. Every year it stays frozen or cut represents billions of pounds in revenue the Treasury doesn't collect, at a time when public finances are under significant pressure. Cancelling the planned January rise would cost the Exchequer roughly the same amount as the recent VAT cut on domestic electricity, a meaningful sum the government may not be willing to forgo again.

The counterargument is that drivers, particularly those in rural areas with no viable public transport alternative, have already absorbed years of rising costs elsewhere, and a fuel duty rise lands hardest on exactly the households with the least flexibility to avoid it.

Remote Gaming Duty is the tax charged on the profits UK based and UK facing online gambling operators make from British ...
06/09/2026

Remote Gaming Duty is the tax charged on the profits UK based and UK facing online gambling operators make from British customers. It's separate from the tax on betting shops or physical casinos and applies specifically to online slots, casino games, and other remote gaming products.

From April 2026, that rate rose from 21% to 40%, one of the largest single tax increases on any UK industry in recent years, applied to a sector that has grown enormously alongside the shift to online betting and gaming over the last decade.

The government's justification centres on public health and social cost. Online gambling, and slots and casino products in particular, have been linked to significantly higher rates of problem gambling compared to traditional betting products like sports wagers. The Gambling Commission and public health bodies have raised sustained concerns about the addictive design of online slots specifically, and campaigners have long argued the industry has been undertaxed relative to the social harm it generates.

The industry's response has focused on two arguments. First, that a near doubling of duty makes the UK a significantly less attractive market for legitimate, regulated operators, potentially reducing investment and jobs in a sector that currently employs tens of thousands of people. Second, and more significantly, that pushing legitimate operators' costs up this sharply risks driving UK gamblers toward unregulated offshore gambling sites that pay no UK tax at all, offer none of the consumer protections, self exclusion tools, or safeguarding measures that regulated UK operators are required to provide, and are far harder for the Gambling Commission to police.

This tension, between taxing an industry heavily enough to reflect its social cost and taxing it so heavily that consumers move to unregulated alternatives with fewer protections, sits at the heart of the debate.

Rental income tax is rising by the same 2 percentage points being applied to savings interest, taking effect from the sa...
06/09/2026

Rental income tax is rising by the same 2 percentage points being applied to savings interest, taking effect from the same date in April 2027. Basic rate rises from 20% to 22%. Higher rate from 40% to 42%. Additional rate from 45% to 47%.

For landlords, this arrives on top of a series of changes that have already significantly reduced the profitability of buy to let property in the UK. Mortgage interest relief for individual landlords was restricted to the basic rate of tax from 2020, meaning higher rate taxpayers can no longer deduct their full mortgage interest cost before calculating their tax bill, a change that pushed many landlords' effective tax rate on rental profit well above their actual income tax band. The 2024 Renters' Rights Act introduced further compliance requirements and costs. And now rental income itself faces a further 2 percentage point increase.

The cumulative effect over the last several years has been a steady stream of individual landlords exiting the market, with many transferring properties into limited companies instead, where corporation tax rates and full mortgage interest deductibility apply, or simply selling up entirely.

The government's rationale mirrors the broader philosophy driving many of these changes, that income from assets and property should be taxed similarly to income from work rather than benefiting from more favourable treatment. Landlords argue they already face a disproportionate tax burden compared to other forms of investment, and that further increases risk reducing the supply of rental property at exactly the time rental demand and prices are rising.

For tenants, the concern is that landlords facing reduced profitability either raise rents to compensate or exit the market entirely, reducing the overall supply of rental homes and pushing rents higher through scarcity.

Savings interest above your personal savings allowance, £1,000 for basic rate taxpayers and £500 for higher rate taxpaye...
05/09/2026

Savings interest above your personal savings allowance, £1,000 for basic rate taxpayers and £500 for higher rate taxpayers, is currently taxed at the same rate as income. From April 2027 that changes, with a specific 2 percentage point increase applied across all three tax bands purely for savings and property income.

Basic rate rises from 20% to 22%. Higher rate rises from 40% to 42%. Additional rate rises from 45% to 47%, notable because additional rate taxpayers receive no personal savings allowance at all, meaning every penny of their savings interest faces the higher charge.

The government has been keen to point out that the change won't affect the vast majority of savers. Because the personal savings allowance shields the first £1,000 or £500 of interest, the government states that 90% of taxpayers will still pay no tax on their savings interest at all after the change.

But for the remaining 10%, and for anyone who finds themselves dragged into a higher tax band through fiscal drag as thresholds remain frozen, the increase is real and compounds an existing problem. Savers have spent much of the last decade experiencing negative real returns, where the interest earned on cash sits below the rate of inflation, meaning the actual purchasing power of savings has been quietly eroding even while the number on the statement grows. A higher tax rate on that interest makes the real terms picture worse still.

The change is expected to raise £2.2 billion by 2029/30 according to the Chancellor. It sits alongside similar 2 percentage point rises to property income tax taking effect the same month, suggesting a coordinated approach to raising revenue from unearned income rather than wages.

Council tax is supposed to fund a fixed set of local services. Bin collection, road maintenance, policing, fire services...
05/09/2026

Council tax is supposed to fund a fixed set of local services. Bin collection, road maintenance, policing, fire services, libraries, and increasingly, adult social care. In theory, your bill reflects your property's value band, a fixed proportion of your local authority's Band D rate.

In practice, where you live changes what you pay by a staggering amount, and that variation has almost nothing to do with how much you actually use the services your council tax funds.

For 2026/27, Westminster's Band D rate sits at around £971. Dorset's sits at £2,765. That's a difference of nearly £1,800 a year between two households in the same council tax band, both entitled to the same category of local services, in the same country, under the same national system.

The reason for the gap isn't usage. It's structural. London boroughs like Westminster and Wandsworth retain a larger share of business rates revenue and receive more central government funding relative to their population, allowing them to keep council tax rates low despite high property values and a high cost of living. Shire and unitary authorities like Dorset have a much smaller business rates base and an older population placing heavier demand on adult social care, which now consumes up to 70% of some councils' entire budgets. They have no choice but to charge residents significantly more to cover the same category of services.

The person in Dorset isn't getting nearly three times the bin collections. They're not receiving three times the policing. They're paying substantially more because of how central government funding is distributed and because their local population happens to need more social care, a cost that has almost nothing to do with any individual household's actual consumption of council services.

This is the uncomfortable truth about council tax. It was never designed as a fee for service. It functions as a local tax with national consequences, and the amount you pay is shaped far more by demographic and funding structures than by anything you personally use.

Second home ownership has become one of the most heavily taxed forms of property ownership in the UK, and the changes ha...
05/09/2026

Second home ownership has become one of the most heavily taxed forms of property ownership in the UK, and the changes have stacked on top of each other significantly over recent years.

Since April 2025, English councils have had the power under the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act to charge a council tax premium of up to 100% on furnished second homes, effectively doubling the annual bill. Many councils, particularly in areas with high concentrations of holiday homes like coastal Cornwall, the Lake District, and parts of Wales, have applied the full premium. Wales allows premiums up to 300%. The average second home council tax bill rose approximately 77% to around £3,672 in 2025/26 as a direct result.

On top of the annual council tax cost, buying a second home in England already attracts a 5% stamp duty surcharge on the full purchase price, on top of standard rates. On a £500,000 second home, that surcharge alone adds £25,000 to the purchase cost.

From April 2028, a new High Value Council Tax Surcharge, the so-called mansion tax, will apply to properties worth over £2 million and will stack directly on top of the existing second home premium. A £2.25 million second home in an area charging the full 100% premium could face a combined annual bill of around £11,700 once all charges apply together.

The government's rationale is straightforward. Second homes, particularly in rural and coastal communities, are widely blamed for pushing local people out of the housing market, hollowing out communities that become empty for large parts of the year, and driving up prices beyond what local wages can support. A 2023 YouGov poll found 59% public support for doubling second home council tax.

Second homeowners argue they already contribute significantly to local economies and that punitive taxation doesn't create new housing stock, it simply makes ownership more expensive for people who were never the cause of the underlying housing shortage.

The nil rate band is the amount of an estate that can pass free of inheritance tax before the 40% charge applies above i...
04/09/2026

The nil rate band is the amount of an estate that can pass free of inheritance tax before the 40% charge applies above it. It has sat at £325,000 since 2009, seventeen years without a single increase, one of the longest freezes of any major UK tax threshold.

If the nil rate band had simply tracked inflation since 2009, it would now stand at over £517,000, according to standard CPI inflation calculations over that period. Instead it has remained completely static while house prices, in particular, have moved dramatically. The average UK house price in 2009 was around £160,000. It now sits above £268,000, an increase of over 65%, while the threshold that determines whether a family home tips an estate into inheritance tax territory hasn't moved at all.

The practical effect is that inheritance tax, once genuinely a tax that only affected the wealthy, now catches a steadily growing number of entirely ordinary families whose only significant asset is the home they lived in for decades. The freeze functions as a silent, unannounced expansion of who pays inheritance tax, exactly the same mechanism as the income tax threshold freezes covered elsewhere in this series, just applied to death rather than income.

With the Autumn Budget 2026 approaching and speculation building around inheritance tax reform more broadly, including a possible replacement with a social care levy and a possible lifetime gift cap, there is growing discussion about whether the nil rate band freeze will be extended further, potentially indefinitely, as a quiet way of increasing inheritance tax revenue without ever announcing a headline rate change.

Every year the threshold stays frozen while house prices and asset values rise is a year more families are pulled into paying a tax that was never designed with them in mind.

04/09/2026

State Pension age is already rising this year. And by law, they only need ten years' notice to move it again.

Here's exactly what's changing, what's still to be decided, and why your retirement plan might not be as fixed as you think.

From 1 January 2025, private school fees in England became subject to 20% VAT for the first time, ending centuries of ta...
04/09/2026

From 1 January 2025, private school fees in England became subject to 20% VAT for the first time, ending centuries of tax exempt status for independent education. The policy was framed as a straightforward fairness argument. Private education is a service like any other, VAT should apply, and the revenue raised would fund 6,500 additional teachers in the state sector.

The scale of the actual impact has significantly exceeded the government's own predictions. Before the policy took effect, the government estimated around 3,000 pupils would move from private to state schools as a result. By September 2025, ISC data showed a net reduction of approximately 35,000 pupils in independent schools across England, a decline of 5.7% from the previous year, more than ten times the original forecast.

The most prestigious and oversubscribed schools, Eton, Wi******er, Wycombe Abbey among them, have largely absorbed the change with limited impact on pupil numbers. The pressure has fallen hardest on smaller, mid-sized independent schools operating on tighter margins, several of which have closed or announced closure, citing VAT alongside rising employer National Insurance costs and falling pupil numbers as combined factors.

Government projected VAT revenue sits at around £1.7 billion a year, funding the promised teacher recruitment. Critics argue the pupils who moved to state schools, concentrated in areas with high private school density like parts of London, Surrey, and Cheshire, are now creating localised pressure on state school capacity that offsets some of the intended benefit.

A High Court challenge to the policy was dismissed in June 2025, confirming Parliament's authority to apply VAT to private education. The policy remains in place and continues to be closely watched as a test case for how significant tax changes play out once implemented, well beyond the initial announcement.

Pension tax relief is one of the largest and most consistently discussed targets for reform in UK fiscal policy, precise...
04/09/2026

Pension tax relief is one of the largest and most consistently discussed targets for reform in UK fiscal policy, precisely because of its scale. The total cost of pension tax and National Insurance relief to the Treasury runs to over £60 billion a year, making it one of the single largest reliefs in the entire tax system, larger than many government departments' entire budgets.

The pension annual allowance currently sits at £60,000, the maximum amount that can be contributed to a pension in a single tax year while still receiving full tax relief. This was raised from £40,000 in 2023 specifically to encourage higher earners, including senior NHS clinicians who were retiring early to avoid punitive tax charges, to remain in work and continue contributing.

With the salary sacrifice National Insurance cap already confirmed to take effect from April 2029 and dividend tax having risen consistently over recent years, tax analysts are increasingly speculating that the pension annual allowance itself could be a target for reduction in the October 2026 Budget, potentially reversing some or all of the 2023 increase.

The argument for reduction centres on cost and distribution. The vast majority of the benefit from a £60,000 annual allowance flows to higher earners who can afford to contribute at that level. Reducing the allowance would primarily affect a relatively small number of high earners while raising meaningful revenue.

The counterargument is that reducing the allowance risks recreating exactly the problem the 2023 increase was designed to solve, discouraging senior professionals from continuing to work and contribute if doing so triggers punitive tax charges. It would also send a signal of policy instability to anyone trying to plan retirement contributions over a multi-decade career, having already seen the allowance move from £40,000 to £60,000 and potentially back down again within a few years.

Address

Braintree

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Joe Adams posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share