You'd have to be mad to start a business in Labour's Britain

After many, many warnings it is now beginning to dawn on Labour's Treasury team that its assault on non-doms is continuing to cause the departure of thousands of high-net-worth individuals to other countries. We know this because Labour is now exploring what it can now do to try to entice very wealthy people to relocate to Britain or at least invest here.
No other country except China is losing more millionaires and billionaires than Britain. It has meant a consequential loss of billions of pounds in UK tax revenues as well as the jobs and economic activity their spending helped to generate.
But what about entrepreneurs seeking to build businesses here, be they British or foreign investors who once thought the UK was a great place to start up a business? How are they reacting to the policies of the Labour Government? What are their prospects and what does it mean for our economic prosperity?
The news is not good. Labour's tax hikes have led to a significant increase in entrepreneurs voluntarily liquidating viable solvent businesses, reaching the highest level since the pandemic. There were 12,602 members' voluntary liquidations (MVLs) in the 2024-25 tax year – the highest since the pandemic – out of a total of 36,807 liquidations, driven primarily by recent tax policy changes, according to advisers.
There is no single reason Labour is making life difficult for entrepreneurs – that's because there are at least six bad policy choices that Labour is responsible for. The message from Labour couldn't be clearer we don't care if British entrepreneurs find better opportunities in other countries.
1. There is the huge hike in capital gains tax (CGT) levied on entrepreneurs – up eight percentage points from 10pc to 18pc coming in April 2026.
2. Entrepreneurs also face the four percentage point increase in the CGT main rate from 20pc to 24pc which makes it more difficult for companies to raise capital by increasing their cost of capital. A study of cross-border transactions involving countries with differences in capital gains tax rates found that a 1pc point increase in the capital gains tax rate reduces the value of equity by around 0.3pc, suggesting capital gains taxes significantly raise firms' cost of capital.
3. These CGT hikes are just part of Labour's overall tax assault on high-net-worth individuals, – often pivotal investors in early-stage companies – which is driving many of them out of the UK. Indeed, evidence shows Labour's overall tax assault is already making departures happen. There is also the increase in business rates and other tax rises such as on stamp duty that are felt acutely by entrepreneurs.
Another challenge is how an increase in CGT rates makes it more difficult for start-up companies to attract and retain skilled and capable staff, who seek the prospect of a decent capital gain to compensate for the poorer job security offered by start-ups. IR35 means that it's much more difficult to bring in freelancers on a flexible basis to meet short-term needs.
4. Then there's the hugely increased bill for employers' National Insurance contributions. For small businesses, cash flow is crucial, and any increase in employer costs eats into growth potential. Not only has the rate increased it also now starts at a far lower threshold, added to which the minimum wage has increased too.
When added to penal rates of taxes on earnings, 62pc when you reach £100,000; and 47pc above £125,000, entrepreneurs have much less money available for investment.
Serial entrepreneur and investor James Dooley has said: 'I've had to reevaluate hiring plans for the next year. Instead of taking on new full-time staff, I'll likely rely more on contractors or freelancers to control costs. For small tech companies like mine, these changes don't just nibble at the margins, they take a real bite out of hiring capacity.'
5. Then we have the imposition of inheritance tax (IHT) on family firms, which means that if an entrepreneur is successful he or she will have great difficulty in passing on the business to the next generation. Why start a company in Britain if you're going to have to bail out of the country later on to avoid a penal death tax hurting your family?
There is already evidence that family shareholders are exiting now to avoid IHT as the liability remains for 10 years (up from seven) after departure.
6. And it's not just the tax rises that Labour has introduced, there's Angela Rayner's union-led Employment Rights Bill too, bringing changes around gig workers, redundancy costs and compensation that could raise the cost of hiring and slow down growth. Startups thrive on agility, and new laws and regulations that slow development down make entrepreneurs question if the effort is worth it.
The threat to entrepreneurs in Britain is not imaginary but being felt already. A recent survey of 200 business owners, commissioned by Handelsbanken Wealth & Asset Management found nearly two out of five have either left the UK or are considering their imminent departure in the next two years.
Likely destinations included Spain, which came top, followed by the United States, France – and Dubai, amongst others. In a survey by the Federation of Small Businesses the increase in minimum wage, new workers' rights and employers' National Insurance contributions caused a third of companies to expect they would cut back on staff while only one in 10 said they planned to take more people on.
Business advisers report that opening conversations with their clients now often start with exploring the possibility of relocating abroad – and why not? Others say their clients are throwing in the towel, seeking voluntary liquidations of viable businesses so they can take their money and run.
Put together, entrepreneurs face a perfect storm of less capital availability, higher taxes diminishing the business returns and personal rewards, higher overheads making profit harder, a treacly tide of new regulations slowing them down – and the probability that passing the successful business or its value on to the family comes at a high cost that does not have to be paid in other countries.
The brutal truth is the UK is no country for entrepreneurs. It is becoming tougher all the time; the challenges are becoming harder to overcome, the risks of failure greater and the possibility of retaining any financial rewards are diminishing.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Times

23 minutes ago

• Times

Leaving oil and gas in the ground was always a pipe dream

Just call me Mystic Mac. As I forecast in this space earlier this month, the UK has finally opened the door to the development of the Rosebank oilfield off Shetland and the Jackdaw gas field off Aberdeen. Ed Miliband, the net zero secretary, famously said that drilling in these two modest reserves would constitute 'climate vandalism'. Well, it looks like he will shortly have to get his spray paint out and daub 'Just Start Oil' on the door of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. To be honest, it didn't take supernatural foresight to predict that these totemic fields would ultimately get the go-ahead. They were given licences by the last government. Production was halted only by a bizarre judgment by the Court of Session in Edinburgh. In January Lord Ericht ruled in favour of the climate activists, Uplift and Greenpeace, who argued that the UK government hadn't carried out a full environmental impact assessment of the emissions from the burning of fossil fuels downstream. It had merely provided an assessment of the carbon dioxide from the process of extracting it and piping it ashore. New methods of extraction can and are producing significant reductions in producer emissions. But the UK government had not formally included an assessment of the downstream emissions since it was deemed self-evident that burning hydrocarbons produces greenhouse gases. What did the court expect? That it would be used to oil bicycle chains and fill balloons? Shell says that Jackdaw alone would produce enough gas to heat 1.4 million households. The environmental and health impact on those households of withdrawing their main source of heating was not, of course, considered in this pettifogging ruling — because that would have required an ounce of common sense. Nor did the court recognise that the gas, which would have to be imported to fuel those domestic boilers if Jackdaw were stoppered, might produce more emissions than using our domestic supply. Yet it should be patently obvious that shipping liquefied natural gas 3,000 miles from America by tanker is more profligate in emissions than using what's produced by extraction from our backyard. The court was tacitly endorsing the perverse logic of the Scottish government and lobbyists such as Greenpeace that, in some morally inexplicable way, imported oil and gas is good while ours is bad. But Sir Keir Starmer was never going to start shutting down an industry that generates about £25 billion a year, according to Offshore Energy UK, and supports around 100,000 jobs. Pointlessly sacrificing these new fields would only have indicated to the few companies still operating in the region that the government is hell bent on closing down the North Sea prematurely. The new rules announced last week by Michael Shanks, the energy minister, will allow further development of the Cambo and Clair fields, expansion of which had also been placed on hold following the January court ruling. This whole episode served only to showcase the absurdity of what is being called the managerial 'lanyard class's' thinking about energy. The Treasury is not stupid and was never going to endorse an exercise in performative self-harm. Nor was No 10. 'Keeping it in the ground', as Patrick Harvie used to advocate, was not what Labour meant by a rational and measured transition to renewable energy. The UK depends on oil and gas for 75 per cent of its energy usage. So the UK government has rejigged the approval process to include a statement of the bleedin' obvious — viz, that burning oil and gas produces emissions. Industry sources believe, rightly, that by submitting this new and more politically correct prospectus, they will be able to go ahead. That is, if firms like Equinor haven't given up in disgust. They're already being hit by a 78 per cent profits tax on North Sea oil, which makes you wonder why they bother. It's not as if the oil price is exactly soaring right now, despite the nasty business in the Strait of Hormuz. Companies such as Harbour Energy have given up and pulled out. Norwegian-owned Equinor, in Rosebank, is hanging on, presumably in the hope that it will be well placed to bid for future wind farm development. It installed the first commercially viable floating wind farm, Hywind, off Peterhead. All of which underlines the lamentable state of our whole approach to energy. Oil companies, demonised by the environmental lobby, happen to possess the very skills and technology which will be needed if and when the green energy bonanza finally materialises. Greenpeace seems to think the wind energy in the North Sea can be harnessed by Native American dream-catchers and transmitted into people's homes by daisy chains. In fact it requires heavy-duty platforms, implanted in turbulent waters, to support wind turbines the size of the Eiffel Tower — and also the laying of undersea cables to get it to the grid (if it can be upgraded in time). This is not very different, technologically, from what fossil fuel companies have been doing for the past 50 years. Rosebank and Jackdaw are not going to solve the UK's strategic energy deficit. They are rather modest operations in a North Sea field that is in steep and irrevocable decline. The glory days are over. But we still need whatever they can provide, if only to ensure a measure of energy security and help reduce costly imports. One of the more specious arguments currently deployed by opponents of Rosebank and Jackdaw is that their hydrocarbons will be exported and are therefore of no use here. Not so: gas goes directly to the UK. Oil is mostly exported to Rotterdam for refining, but it comes back as petrol and other products. It isn't refined here because we've closed nearly all our own refineries, such as Grangemouth, because of our perverse belief that it is morally preferable to import hydrocarbons. Abandoning the North Sea won't bring forward net zero by a single day. It will merely increase our dependency on authoritarian governments in the Middle East, make energy bills even more unaffordable, and deprive the UK of billions in oil revenues to spend on the NHS. Predictably, the Scottish government has not responded to the energy U-turn. The SNP is still under the sway of environmental cretinism. No wonder Fergus Ewing, a voice of energy sanity, has decided to walk. Perhaps Ed Miliband may be following him in the not-too-distant future.

The Sun

44 minutes ago

• The Sun

Border crisis deepens as over 1,000 migrants cross Channel in just 48 hours despite France upping patrols

MORE than 1,000 migrants have crossed the Channel in small boats in just 48 hours. They arrived in 15 dinghies — despite French police ramping up beach patrols and deploying tear-gas to deter launches. 2 2 Home Office figures show 437 crossed in seven small boats on Friday, followed by 583 in eight the next day. It brought the total for the week to 2,083, and the tally for the year so far to 18,400 — up nearly 6,000 compared with this time in 2024. The surge heaps huge pressure on PM Sir Keir Starmer, who last week admitted the situation was 'deteriorating'. French officers were seen ramping up tactics on the beaches, firing gas at groups preparing to launch. But some stood by as migrants waded into the sea and clambered aboard dinghies unchallenged. The PM and French leaders Emmanuel Macron are expected to hold a summit next month focused on tackling the problem. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said Labour has 'totally lost control of our borders' after scrapping the Rwanda deterrent 'before it even started'. He added: 'Every single immigrant needs to be removed to a location outside Europe the minute they arrive. 'We need to repeal the Human Rights Act to stop illegal immigrants and foreign criminals abusing our rules to stay. 'And we should suspend the fishing deal until the French actually do what they are supposed to and stop these boats at sea.'

The Independent

an hour ago

• The Independent

Keir Starmer claims Kneecap Glastonbury performance ‘not appropriate'

Irish hip-hop trio Kneecap are scheduled to perform at Glastonbury next weekend, despite controversy surrounding one of its members. Band member Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh has been charged under the Terrorism Act for allegedly displaying a Hezbollah flag at a London show last year. Prime Minister Keir Starmer stated he does not think Kneecap's performance at Glastonbury is appropriate due to the ongoing court case. Conservative party leader Kemi Badenoch called for the BBC not to broadcast Kneecap's performance, citing the charge and accusing the band of extremism. The band denies supporting Hamas or Hezbollah, calling the charge a distraction, and has publicly linked the issue to their support for Palestine.