Show the Working

Close Tax Loopholes and Modernise HMRC

Labour · what the evidence says

An independent, source-checked look at Labour’s policy “Close Tax Loopholes and Modernise HMRC” — what it would actually do across the things that affect your life. Every claim below quotes the source behind it. How this works.

Tax & the money you keep — Hurts

minor · moderate confidence

This policy raises taxes on a narrow group — non-doms, offshore trust users, and private equity managers — so most households see no change to their take-home pay. Those affected face a higher tax burden, but the numbers involved are small.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether affected wealthy individuals leave the UK in large numbers, which would mean neither a tax-rise effect on them nor any revenue gain, leaving the policy's net incidence near zero.

Our reading: O11 asks who gains or loses take-home pay. This policy bundle is a set of targeted tax increases on specific wealthy groups — non-doms, offshore trust users, and private equity managers — with no reduction in tax for any group. For the overwhelming majority of UK households it has no direct incidence on take-home pay. For the affected groups, the tax burden rises materially: non-doms lose the remittance-basis exemption; carried-interest recipients move from a 28% CGT rate to ~34% (still below the 47% full rate, so the loophole is narrowed not closed); and HMRC enforcement targets large businesses and wealthy individuals more aggressively. The direction is therefore 'worsens' for those directly in scope, and negligible for everyone else. Magnitude is 'minor' at the population level because the affected population is small — non-doms numbered far fewer than the general taxpaying base — and the revenue estimates are highly uncertain, ranging from £0 net (if emigration materialises at CEBR/Treasury-feared levels) to £3.2 billion (OBR upper scenario). The IFS and OBR both flag that behavioural responses could eliminate the entire tax-rise effect, meaning affected individuals may simply leave rather than pay more. If significant emigration occurs, the practical incidence on O11 shrinks toward zero. The carried-interest reform's compromise design means the effective rate rises only modestly (28% to ~34%), limiting the worsening effect on that group. HMRC modernisation is projected to raise £7.5 billion through compliance, but this lands on evaders and avoiders rather than compliant taxpayers, so its O11 effect is confined to those currently under-paying. Overall: a genuine but narrow worsening of take-home pay for a small wealthy cohort, with high uncertainty about whether the effect materialises at all due to emigration risk.

Public finances & the next generation — Helps

moderate · moderate confidence

This package of measures aims to raise several billion pounds by closing tax loopholes and boosting HMRC enforcement, and the OBR has certified material additional revenue from the HMRC investment strand. However, the non-dom revenue is highly uncertain — it could be close to zero if enough wealthy individuals leave — and the carried interest change was significantly watered down, so the net gain is real but smaller than originally claimed.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether wealthy non-doms leave the UK in sufficient numbers to wipe out the revenue gain from abolishing non-dom status, which the OBR described as 'highly uncertain' and Treasury officials feared could leave a £1 billion funding gap.

Our reading: The policy bundle has three revenue-raising strands whose fiscal effects diverge sharply in their reliability. The HMRC modernisation strand is the most solid: an OBR-certified package targeting £7.5 billion by 2029-30, underpinned by a measurable £46.8 billion tax gap and evidence that compliance investment yields high returns. This strand alone is sufficient to push the verdict toward 'improves' for O12. The non-dom strand is the most uncertain. The OBR's own estimate of ~£3.2 billion is flagged as 'highly uncertain', Treasury officials feared a near-zero or negative outcome, and the CEBR modelled a net gain of zero if a quarter of non-doms depart — against a base of £9 billion they currently contribute. The policy has already triggered a dip in non-dom numbers. This uncertainty does not cancel the HMRC strand but it substantially compresses the expected net gain. The carried interest strand was materially watered down (from ~£565m to ~£80m per year), making its fiscal contribution marginal. On balance, the policy bundle improves public finances in this parliament — primarily through the OBR-certified HMRC investment — but the magnitude is moderate rather than major because the non-dom component carries genuine downside risk that could offset a significant share of the headline gain. The net effect is almost certainly positive (given the HMRC floor), but it is smaller and less certain than the manifesto framing implies. No element of this policy increases borrowing or worsens the debt path, so there is no worsening signal to weigh against the positive one.

Prosperity & living standards — Mixed picture

minor · low confidence

This package could raise meaningful revenue to fund growth-enhancing public services, but the risk that wealthy individuals and businesses leave the UK may offset or even reverse the gain — and official forecasters themselves flag very high uncertainty about the net effect on the tax base and economic activity.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether the behavioural response — non-doms and private equity professionals relocating — wipes out the revenue gain and reduces business investment enough to depress living standards relative to the counterfactual.

Our reading: This policy bundle has two distinct channels affecting O13. The first — non-dom reform and the carried interest change — carries genuine two-way risk for prosperity. Non-doms collectively paid £9 billion in tax; if a substantial share departs (as tax advisors anticipate and early data hints), the net fiscal effect could be zero or negative, removing investment capital and business activity from the UK economy rather than funding growth-enhancing public spending. The OBR's own 'highly uncertain' label and Treasury fears of a £1 billion hole illustrate how wide the range is. The carried interest reform was so heavily diluted that its projected revenue (£80m by 2028-29) is too small to move the needle on O13 at population scale. The second channel — HMRC modernisation — is more credible on its own terms. An OBR-certified package targeting £7.5 billion in additional compliance yield by 2029-30, with strong returns-on-compliance evidence, represents a plausible upside for the public finances and thus for funding productivity-enhancing public investment. However, the tax gap has been broadly stable for years despite prior reform efforts, and the OBR flags high uncertainty on behavioural responses here too. On balance, the HMRC investment piece points modestly positive for O13; the non-dom changes introduce a real risk of near-term economic drag (wealth and investment departures) that could offset or exceed the revenue gain. Both directions are supported by cited evidence from credible institutional sources, making this genuinely mixed rather than a clear lean either way. Magnitude is minor because even optimistic revenue scenarios are modest relative to the size of the economy, and the downside scenario involves partially reversing the gain.

Inequality & fair shares — Helps

moderate · moderate confidence

These measures all target the wealthiest — non-doms, offshore trust users, private equity managers, and large-business tax avoiders — so the distribution of gains clearly tilts toward narrowing the gap. The main caveat is that behavioural responses (wealthy people leaving or finding new structures) could reduce how much revenue is actually collected, limiting the redistributive effect.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: How many wealthy non-doms and high-net-worth individuals leave the UK in response, potentially shrinking the tax base and reducing the redistributive yield of these measures.

Our reading: All three components of this policy are distributionally progressive by design: they remove preferential tax treatment that exclusively benefits the wealthy (non-doms, offshore trust users, private equity managers) and invest in enforcement against large businesses and high-wealth individuals. The gap-narrowing direction is robust regardless of revenue uncertainty — even if behavioural responses reduce yield, the incidence of any taxes collected falls on the top of the distribution. The non-dom abolition and IHT trust reforms target individuals wealthy enough to hold significant overseas assets; the carried interest reform targets private equity managers whose pay advantage over ordinary workers was structural; and HMRC investment is explicitly directed at large businesses and the wealthy rather than, say, small businesses (which account for the largest share of the tax gap by value). The magnitude is moderate rather than major for two reasons. First, revenue estimates are genuinely uncertain: the OBR, LSE, and CEBR projections span a wide range including near-zero net yield under pessimistic behavioural assumptions. Second, the carried interest reform was substantially watered down — a rate of ~34% versus the 47% applicable to equivalent self-employment income — limiting its redistributive bite. Still, the directional effect on the gap is clear: absent these policies, wealthy individuals continue to access preferential rates and structures unavailable to ordinary workers. The counterfactual is a status quo in which non-dom status, offshore trust IHT sheltering, and the carried interest discount persist, all of which structurally widen the gap. The policy's effects will be felt within this parliament as the April 2025 regime changes are already in force. Confidence is moderate because behavioural responses remain the central uncertainty, and advocacy-linked sources (Tax Justice UK, TaxWatch) are available but down-weighted; the OBR/LSE/IFS anchors are used for magnitude.

Good work & fair pay — Little effect

minor · low confidence

This policy mainly changes how tax is collected from wealthy non-doms and private equity managers — it does not directly raise wages, create jobs, or strengthen employment rights for ordinary workers. The only real link to fair pay is that closing the carried interest loophole narrows the tax-rate gap between private equity bosses and regular employees, but the gap remains large after the compromise.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether HMRC enforcement investment meaningfully improves compliance on undeclared employment income and labour-market abuses, which would be the strongest channel to O4.

Our reading: The policy bundle primarily targets tax avoidance by very wealthy individuals and private equity managers — it is a revenue and fairness measure aimed at the top of the income distribution, not a direct labour-market intervention. Its connection to O4 (good work and fair pay for ordinary people) is indirect and modest. The most relevant element is the carried interest reform: it narrows, but does not close, the tax-rate advantage that private equity managers enjoy over regular employees. After the compromise, managers still pay around 34% versus 47% for comparable self-employment income — so the equity gap persists and the revenue effect is small (£80m by 2028-29). HMRC modernisation could, in principle, improve enforcement of employment taxes and help catch businesses that underpay or misclassify workers — a real but speculative channel to O4. The tax gap data shows the problem is large (£46.8bn), but the primary gap is in small businesses, not the wealthy individuals this policy targets. Neither the non-dom changes nor the offshore trust rules have material bearing on ordinary workers' wages, job security, or employment rights. On balance, the policy makes a minor, marginal improvement to pay fairness at the top end but leaves the fundamentals of O4 — real wages, job quality, employment rights — essentially untouched.

Compare all parties on tax & the money you keep →Compare all parties on public finances & the next generation →Compare all parties on prosperity & living standards →Compare all parties on inequality & fair shares →Compare all parties on good work & fair pay →Open this in the interactive comparison →← Show the Working home