Chancellor John Healey has unveiled emergency household support, higher taxes on banks and new defence commitments as the Middle East conflict puts renewed pressure on Britain’s economy. Behind the immediate relief measures lies a difficult calculation over growth, public spending and national security.

Britain’s government has attempted to reconcile rising energy prices, constrained public finances and growing defence obligations in a Budget that illustrates how international conflicts are reshaping domestic economic policy.

Presenting his first Budget on 28 October, Chancellor of the Exchequer John Healey announced a £100 energy payment for millions of households, an extension of electricity VAT relief and additional measures intended to support businesses facing rising operating costs.

The package comes as Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s administration confronts the economic consequences of the conflict in the Middle East, alongside continuing financial commitments arising from Russia’s war against Ukraine.

The central difficulty is that Britain must simultaneously protect household purchasing power, support economic growth and finance a more expensive security environment, without allowing government borrowing to expand beyond its fiscal targets.

Energy prices dictate economic policy

The most immediate measures concern energy.

Under the Treasury’s Budget proposals, up to 20 million households in England occupying properties in Council Tax bands A to D will receive a £100 payment from January 2027.

The government has allocated £2.6 billion for the programme, including corresponding funding arrangements for the devolved administrations.

The temporary reduction in VAT on domestic electricity will also remain in place until July 2027, a measure expected to reduce the annual Ofgem price cap by approximately £50 in April.

Meanwhile, the Chancellor announced plans to remove standing charges from domestic gas bills, transferring fixed costs into consumption-based charges.

Although the government estimates that the change could benefit a majority of households, its distributional effects will depend on individual consumption. Lower gas users may benefit differently from households with substantial heating requirements.

The measures demonstrate how energy prices have become a direct constraint on fiscal policymaking.

Britain’s exposure to internationally traded gas means that disruptions originating outside Europe can quickly influence domestic prices, regardless of the source of individual energy supplies.

Banks and businesses face different treatment

Rather than introduce broad increases in personal taxation, the government has chosen targeted revenue measures.

The Bank Corporation Tax Surcharge will temporarily increase from 3 to 6 per cent between January 2027 and March 2028, helping finance household energy support.

The government has also announced changes to gambling taxation intended to fund assistance for smaller businesses in retail, hospitality and leisure.

Fuel duty will remain frozen until July 2027, extending a policy intended to limit motoring and transport costs.

These decisions reflect competing pressures.

Households and smaller businesses require relief from higher costs, while the Treasury must demonstrate that its spending commitments remain consistent with fiscal discipline.

The distribution of the tax burden is therefore becoming an important political question, particularly when the government is simultaneously seeking private investment to stimulate growth.

Growth forecasts reveal limited room for manoeuvre

The latest forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility offer little prospect of rapid economic expansion.

According to figures published alongside the Budget, British GDP is expected to grow by 1.2 per cent in 2026 and just 1 per cent in 2027.

Inflation is forecast to peak at 3.8 per cent in the first quarter of 2027 before gradually returning towards the Bank of England’s 2 per cent target.

The Chancellor’s fiscal headroom — the margin available before the government’s borrowing rules would be breached — has narrowed to approximately £15 billion in 2029–30.

This creates an unusually difficult environment for policymaking.

Further economic disruption could reduce tax receipts or increase spending demands, leaving the Treasury with limited capacity to respond without revising its plans.

Defence spending enters the fiscal equation

The Budget also places national security increasingly within the government’s wider industrial strategy.

Britain remains committed to reaching defence spending equivalent to 3.5 per cent of GDP by 2035, with an interim target of 3 per cent in 2030.

The government has announced plans for the National Wealth Fund and British Business Bank to deploy up to £5 billion over four years into defence, dual-use technologies and other sectors supporting national security.

It has also committed an additional £500 million to support Ukrainian air defences during the coming winter.

These measures extend beyond immediate military procurement.

They seek to strengthen domestic industrial capacity, encourage private investment and establish supply chains capable of sustaining higher defence expenditure.

However, the precise financing arrangements for Britain’s longer-term NATO commitments are to be determined at the next spending review.

A European problem without a common fiscal solution

Britain’s predicament closely resembles that confronting European Union governments.

Across Europe, policymakers are attempting to finance defence modernisation and energy security while maintaining social expenditure and industrial competitiveness.

The difference lies partly in the institutional frameworks within which those decisions are made.

EU governments operate under European fiscal rules, while Britain sets its own borrowing and debt targets. Nevertheless, all face the same underlying pressures from energy markets, interest rates and international security commitments.

For British businesses trading with the European Union, the effects of energy costs and industrial investment policies on either side of the Channel will remain particularly significant.

The October Budget consequently represents more than an exercise in temporary household assistance.

It exposes the difficulty of sustaining public services, improving competitiveness and responding to geopolitical instability when economic growth is modest and available fiscal resources are limited.

Whether the measures provide lasting relief will depend less on the immediate payments announced by the Chancellor than on the course of energy prices, inflation and economic growth over the coming year.

French economist Gabriel Zucman has come to California bearing a familiar French solution to a fiscal problem: another tax.

Once based at the University of California, Berkeley, Zucman is back and campaigning for Proposition 40, which would impose an allegedly one-time 5 percent tax on the net worth of Californians worth more than $1 billion. Zucman, who coauthored the proposition, estimates that the tax could raise about $100 billion and claims that 90 percent of the proceeds would go to health care.

The California Legislative Analyst's office is far more cautious, saying it would raise only "tens of billions" and could cause a long-term loss of income-tax revenue as wealthy people leave the state with the companies they created.

I've written plenty about why wealth taxes are economically destructive, administratively nightmarish, and unlikely to achieve anything close to what their advocates promise. But Zucman's prescription is wrong for a more fundamental reason, as his (and my) native country shows: Raising taxes to fuel ever-larger demands for government spending is a recipe for disaster.

Unless you've been living in a remote cave recently, you've likely seen all the protests and destruction in France. But do you know why it's happening?

As another economist, Paul Krugman, rightly noted back in 2017, "France offers a social safety net beyond the wildest dreams of U.S. progressives: guaranteed high-quality health care for all, generous paid leave for new parents, universal pre-K, and much more."

For decades, France has answered any perceived desire with government spending, then responded to the resulting fiscal problem by seeking new revenue sources. Today, French government spending consumes roughly 58 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).

Krugman gloated that France wasn't suffering social collapse and speculated that it was due to all the spending. He certainly can't say that anymore. In fact, he is now worried that France may be on the precipice of a debt crisis. The truth is that France hasn't done well for some time, even when Krugman cheered its spending.

One of the groups in the street today, young people, has faced widespread unemployment for a long time. The youth unemployment rate in France (ages 15-24) has hovered between 17 percent and 27 percent since 2000. In the second quarter of 2026, it was 21.6 percent, against 14.8 percent in the Eurozone and 9.9 percent in the U.S.

French people also pay some of the highest taxes in the developed world, and they're not happy with the return. The government already takes more than 52 percent of the country's output in revenue, runs deficits exceeding 5 percent of GDP, and has accumulated debt approaching 120 percent of GDP. Nonetheless, French students complain that the government is shortchanging schools, while everyone sees that it is shortchanging its army and police.

The students aren't wrong to feel left out. At The Two Cents Substack, Hoover Institution scholar Hanno Lustig calculates that, between 1995 and 2024, spending on social protection and health (most of which benefits older people) rose from 53.1 percent to 58.7 percent of all French government spending. The share devoted to education, defense, and public order fell from 15.2 percent to 13.7 percent. Transportation fell from 5.3 percent to 3.8 percent.

In other words, France has built an enormous welfare state, much of it devoted to older citizens, while letting other state capacities and basic services fall apart. As transfers of wealth swallow a larger share of the budget, everything else gets squeezed.

That is the fiscal ratchet Californians should worry about when Zucman tells them Proposition 40 is necessary to "save" health care. Proponents claim Washington "cut" Medicaid, but that language is misleading. California's deficit started long before any Washington spending reductions. Besides, federal Medicaid spending isn't falling—not even close. The Congressional Budget Office estimates it will reach $708 billion in 2026, 8 percent more than in 2025. What Washington did in the 2025 budget reconciliation law was reduce Medicaid's future growth relative to previous projections, partly by changing eligibility and enrollment rules and financing arrangements.

This is how the ratchet works. Once the government projects a spending increase, anything less becomes a cut. And once Washington fails to finance the entire projected increase, Californians are told that Sacramento must backfill the missing money. And how should it do that? Conveniently, by creating an entirely new tax.

France has run this experiment for decades. It has an incredibly generous welfare state paid for with very high taxes; it's even tried a wealth tax and has a value-added tax, yet somehow it's never enough. Its welfare state has not eliminated scarcity. It has merely transferred the job of rationing scarce resources to politicians.

Zucman looks at California and sees hundreds of billions of dollars of private wealth waiting to solve a public finance problem. Californians should look across the Atlantic and ask a different question: What happens after politicians decide that every spending adjustment can be delayed until tomorrow by finding another pot of private wealth?

France should not be sending California tax advice. It should be sending a warning.

COPYRIGHT 2026 CREATORS.COM

The post France Is a Warning to California's Tax-the-Rich Crowd appeared first on Reason Magazine.