Autumn Budget 2026: five no-brainers to boost productivity

Despite ongoing calls for radical tax and economic reforms to boost productivity, Chancellor John Healey is expected to deliver a cautious, low-key Budget, Tim Sarson You can tell it’s Budget season. The leaves are just starting to turn, Halloween goods fill the shops, and the corridor small talk from my colleagues has moved on from “how was your summer holiday” to “so what’s going to happen on October 28 th then?” My answer to them, subject of course to some huge new rumour or fiscal bombshell in the coming week, is “not much”.

I’m expecting a quiet, targeted affair, marked by few of the sweeping tax rises we saw in the last two under Rachel Reeves. Two months ago, I wrote here how our new Chancellor John Healey seems to want to keep things light and cheerful. I’ve not changed my mind on this. Every time anything remotely ‘interesting’ has found its way into the rumour mill since the change of leadership it’s been gently scotched by someone in government or put squarely on the back burner.

Exit taxes for departing wealthy individuals? Ruled out by the business secretary. Equalising Capital Gains Tax and income tax? Poohpoohed just last week by the Chancellor. Abolishing Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT)? Introducing a land value tax? Dropping the mansion tax threshold to a somewhat less mansion like £1.5m? All gone. In recent days we’ve finally started to see some traditional Treasury kite flying. But, with the notable exception of the latest rumours on bank taxation, it’s all been mostly small fry so far.

From what I’m hearing, I’m also left with a clear sense that whilst some changes to our tax system might seem like no-brainers to us, now might not be quite the right time for them. For tax commentators this procrastination can be frustrating. But. Let’s take a breath and think. Radical reform? The economic background is well known. While the Chancellor has not wanted to be a purveyor of doom, our public finances face a couple of known, related problems.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and productivity growth have lagged historical expectations for years, not helped by repeated crises that have hit business and consumer confidence; and we have a rising cost of government debt which, whilst it’s recently lagged trends in the USA, France and Germany, shows no sign of reversing while we face repeated supply-side inflation shocks. However, there are small green shoots in a recent International Monetary Fund announcement that the UK is on the best or most promising trajectory when it comes to the budget deficit in the coming years.

Commentators, including me, regularly call for radical reform to remove obstacles to workforce participation and growth, and most also demand ‘tough choices’ on spending and tax to balance the books. What would making those tough choices do to resolve these problems? They might buy us time on government borrowing, but they are unlikely on their own to suppress gilt yields a huge amount unless the global environment changes. Fiscal tightening may well suppress consumer and business confidence and inhibit investment.

We saw that twice ahead of the last two Budgets as the miasma of fear descended. Tough choices sound courageous, but might they be counterproductive at this stage? GDP is starting to look a little more positive, but we’re hardly at bubble levels yet. OK, but what about those no-brainers to improve productivity? I’d love to see the £100k tax cliff-edge resolved. The VAT threshold too. SDLT is clamming up the housing market, and stamp duty on shares is clamming up equity markets.

The corporate tax rate. Widening the scope of the patent box. They’re all real growth levers that the government could pull. I’d be delighted to see them addressed. But: none of these would be uncontroversial. Most would cost money. Some look like giveaways to the rich, or big business. Others would need to be paid for by something unpopular elsewhere. Are the obvious benefits worth the political aggro and the risk of being picked apart?

Tax professionals like me would say yes: show some bravery. The political calculation might be different. So actually would we be better placed striving for decisions that create certainty or not? This is the big question for the Chancellor. Businesses always tell us they value stability and predictability. Consumers spend when they’re not concerned about the future. A low key budget that kicks the can down the road on some of the big decisions?

Maybe that’s not such a bad idea after all. Tim Sarson is head of tax at KPMG