How to raise £30 billion without annoying a single person

It's time for a bold economic approach. Maintaining the status quo hasn't worked. Growth is paltry, if it's there at all. Reeves should use the November budget for radical reforms.

Rachel Reeves has her moment. The November Budget will be the first full test of Labour’s claim to be the party of both fairness and fiscal discipline. The public finances are tight, the spending pressures endless, and every department wants a promise. Reeves insists she will not borrow recklessly, which leaves only one question: where does the money come from?

There are four obvious answers. None is painless, but all are defensible. Ending the fuel duty freeze. Reforming the pension triple lock. Equalising capital gains with income tax. And swapping 2p of National Insurance for 2p of income tax.

Together they could raise or save roughly £25–30 billion a year, enough to steady the debt path and still fund Labour’s priorities.

End the fuel duty freeze

Fuel duty has been stuck in cash terms since 2011, with an extra 5p cut added after Russia invaded Ukraine. The Office for Budget Responsibility says reversing the cut and resuming inflation-linked uprating would raise £2.6 billion next year and £4.6 billion a year by 2029–30.

The freeze overwhelmingly benefits wealthier, high-mileage drivers and undermines Britain’s climate goals. The Green Alliance warns that fuel-related revenues will collapse to a fraction of GDP as electric vehicles take over.

Reeves could frame an end to the freeze as a climate-aligned fiscal correction, not a tax rise. The Treasury needs the revenue; the country needs the signal.

Reform the pension triple lock

The triple lock guarantees that pensions rise by the highest of inflation, average earnings, or 2.5 %. It has become a symbol of security - and of imbalance. The OBR’s Fiscal Risks report suggests keeping it in full could cost £15 billion a year by the end of the decade compared with earnings-based uprating.

Switching to a “double lock” - inflation or 2.5 %, whichever is higher - would still protect real incomes but stop runaway costs. It would also signal generational fairness: the state cannot keep ratcheting pensions while freezing thresholds for workers.

If Reeves wants to prove she can make hard choices, this is the one that counts.

Equalise capital gains tax with income tax

A banker’s bonus and a builder’s wage are taxed differently. One can face 45 %, the other 20 % or less. The Office of Tax Simplification and Institute for Fiscal Studies have each shown that equalising the two would raise £14–16 billion a year, even after accounting for behavioural changes.

It would simplify the system, close avoidance routes, and reinforce Labour’s core message: the tax code should not reward wealth over work.

The party can present this not as class politics but as consistency - a single, rational framework for all income.

Swap 2p of National Insurance for 2p of income tax

The Resolution Foundation has modelled an elegant reform: cut employee National Insurance by 2 pence, raise all income tax bands by 2 pence. Workers’ take-home pay remains unchanged, but pensioners, landlords, and others outside NI begin to contribute. Estimated yield: around £6 billion a year.

It would broaden the tax base without raising overall burdens. More importantly, it initiates the long-promised task of aligning NI and income tax - something every Chancellor has discussed and none has yet accomplished.

If Reeves wants to demonstrate both fairness and modernisation, this reform does both.

The choice before Reeves

Together, these four changes would deliver real money and real credibility:

Even after adjusting for overlap, £25–30 billion is a plausible estimate. That’s enough to show markets Labour means business - and to finance long-term investment in housing, energy, and skills.

The Budget in November is not just about arithmetic. It’s about identity. Reeves can either deliver a holding statement, tinkering at the edges, or she can mark a clear break from the evasions of the past decade.

Britain’s problem is not that it taxes too much, but that it taxes badly. This Budget is her chance to fix that. Her chance to prove that sound money and social justice can occupy the same spreadsheet.