Why didn’t Labour’s Budget squeeze the super-rich a bit harder?

While I support the Budget’s priority in investing in our public services and the future of our country, I do wish the chancellor had grasped the nettle on taxing the super-rich (“Budget 2024: What was missing from Labour’s historic event?”, Wednesday 30 October).

Modest wealth taxes – measures tackling inheritance tax, capital gains and income tax rates – could have raised £10bn a year. It is something Rachel Reeves should have prioritised over other measures introduced on Wednesday.

The super-rich can afford to contribute more; their wealth should be taxed on a par with the income of working people.

But instead, the government raised the employers’ national insurance. This means that all businesses, large and small, will have to absorb the cost or pass it on to their customers. Businesses will now think hard about even hiring new employees!

This amounts to an attack on working people, who Labour promised to protect before the election.

Harry Duffin

Warwickshire

A lot of the talk around the Budget has spuriously and thoughtlessly hung on the phrase “hard-working person”. As the prime minister himself has indicated, employees are not the only people who work “hard” (“Keir Starmer says stocks and shares owners ‘not working people’ in hint at capital gains hike”, Friday 25 October).

Entrepreneurs also take risks with their own money and face losing it all. C-suite executives have all sorts of legal obligations often unknown to the ordinary worker. Landlords worry that a large appliance breaking down, or a tenant leaving one month to the next, might mean coming up short on their mortgage repayments, which have rocketed in recent years.

These and other attributes make their work “hard”, too. But why is it that only ‘hard’ work that deserves our respect?

Why does the British psyche honour those who struggle? We should celebrate those who, through their intellect and thoughtfulness, develop efficiencies that yield them results more effortlessly. We should admire those who put their money towards investments, many of which keep pension pots afloat. We should mimic the people who have come to understand the system and use it, solely in a legal manner, to their benefit.

If you and I produce the same outputs and receive the same reward, but I do so in a more efficient manner that means I have time remaining to pursue other things in my life, why would you not look to me for advice rather than denigrating me for not working “hard” enough?

Matthew Hurst

Cambridge

I am deeply concerned about Labour’s introduction of a family farm tax, which breaks their promise to support British farmers (“Starmer accused of lying to farmers with surprise Budget ‘tractor tax’ set to destroy family farms”, Thursday 31 October).

This new policy poses a significant threat to the future of family-run farms, making it much more difficult for these essential businesses to be passed on to the next generation.

Farms have been the backbone of rural communities and have ensured food security for generations. By imposing additional financial burdens on family farms, this tax risks jeopardising their long-term viability. The impact of this policy will be felt in job losses, reduced local investment, and an increased strain on already tight profit margins. Ultimately, these pressures will lead to a reduction in local food production, driving up food prices and threatening national food security.

Protecting the future of British farming is essential not just for rural areas, but for the entire country. I call on Labour to reconsider this damaging policy and work towards solutions that sustain farming communities, safeguard jobs, and keep food affordable for all.

Alastair Redman

Isle of Islay