Only one in ten of the UK’s highest earners pay close to the top headline rate of tax, according to research published today by the Centre for the Analysis of Taxation (CenTax), which is calling on John Healey to equalise capital gains and income tax rates in next month’s budget.

The researchers said only 10 per cent of the richest 0.01 per cent of the population paid close to the top 47 per cent rate on earnings. A quarter of that group paid an effective average tax rate of 20 per cent or less, the report said.

CenTax estimated that aligning the rates of capital gains tax and income tax at the budget on 28 October could raise an extra £19.7bn for the Treasury by 2030.

The findings are based on an analysis of anonymised HM Revenue & Customs data on top earners from 2022. The lower effective rates are likely to reflect the richest individuals generating a bigger share of their income from capital gains, which are taxed at a lower rate than earnings.

Earnings are subject to income tax and national insurance contributions, with the combined top rate reaching 47 per cent. Capital gains tax is charged on profits from the sale of assets such as shares, or a property that is not the seller’s main home.

According to HMRC guidance on capital gains tax rates, higher rate taxpayers pay 24 per cent on gains from 6 April 2026, while basic rate taxpayers pay 18 per cent on gains within the basic income tax band. Gains qualifying for Business Asset Disposal Relief are taxed at 18 per cent, and the tax-free allowance for 2026-27 is £3,000. An additional charge applies to workers predominantly in the private equity industry.

CenTax said the effective rate paid by the richest individuals was likely to have risen to 23 per cent after Rachel Reeves increased the lower and higher rates of capital gains tax in the October 2024 budget.

According to its analysis, tax rates paid by the top 1 per cent of earners have increased since 2008, but have fallen for the top 0.01 per cent over the same period. For the average earner, tax rates declined.

Andy Summers, director of CenTax and a professor of law at the London School of Economics, said: “The assumption that our tax system is already steeply progressive only holds for some top earners and is frequently not true at the very top.”

Arun Advani, director of CenTax and professor of economics at the University of Warwick, said: “By creating inequalities across individuals with otherwise similar incomes, the current tax system is getting in the way of growth, encouraging individuals to chase low rates rather than working in the most productive way.”

Opponents of equalisation argue that it would drive down investment and deter entrepreneurship by reducing the profits made from risk taking. Others have said it would lead to more billionaires leaving Britain, following the departures of hedge fund manager Chris Rokos and Lakshmi Mittal. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has blamed Labour’s tax plans for an exodus of wealth creators.

The report lands as Healey, who succeeded Reeves as chancellor, and prime minister Andy Burnham prepare the budget. Economists have estimated that fiscal headroom, the margin against the government’s fiscal rules, has fallen to £10bn from £23.7bn because of the rise in government bond yields since the start of the Iran war nearly seven months ago. Business Matters reported last week that Healey faces a £10bn gap as borrowing costs hit a 19-year high.

Whitehall sources said last week that the prime minister and chancellor had considered lowering the valuation threshold for the incoming mansion tax to £1.5m, in what was described as a more “aggressive” approach to taxing wealth. In July, more than 100 millionaires signed a letter urging Burnham to introduce a wealth tax.

The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that the tax burden, public revenues relative to GDP, is already on course for a post-Second World War high of 38 per cent.

The Treasury was contacted for comment.

About the author

Jamie Young

Jamie Young is Senior Reporter at Business Matters, covering SME finance, employment law and Westminster policy since 2016. He has reported on every Budget and Autumn Statement since 2018, helped make sense of the ‘covid era’ and the bounce-back loan scheme from launch through the fraud investigations, and broke the magazine’s coverage of the 2024 late-payment reforms. He joined Business Matters straight from completing his BA in Administration from Exeter University and is NCTJ-qualified. Reach him at jyoung@cbmeg.co.uk

Advertisement

The choice is real, but it is narrower and more procedural than most first-time developers expect, and the parts of the job that can be competed for are defined by the water company that will eventually own the pipe.

Understanding where that line falls is the difference between a useful second price and a wasted fortnight. Plenty of developers find out about self-lay halfway through the process, after a quotation has already landed, and assume the option has closed. Usually it hasn’t.

Who is allowed to lay a new water main

Work on a new water connection splits into contestable and non-contestable elements. Contestable work can be carried out by the water company, by an accredited self-lay organisation appointed by the developer, or in some cases by a new appointee, and it typically covers the new mains, the service pipes and much of the on-site construction. Non-contestable work stays with the appointed water company, and in most regions that includes the final connection into the live network and the point at which water is let into the new main.

The precise boundary is not fixed in legislation. Each water company publishes an addendum to the sector code of practice for self-laying of water mains and services, setting out which activities it treats as contestable in its own area. A developer building across two supply areas can genuinely face two different answers to the same question, so the sensible first move is to pull the relevant company’s current developer services and self-lay documentation before pricing anything. Ofwat’s overview of the connections market is a reasonable starting point for anyone meeting the terminology for the first time.

Adoption is the other half of the arrangement. Whoever installs the pipework, the water company adopts the finished infrastructure into the public network once it complies with the adoption agreement and the associated testing and assurance requirements. Ofwat’s Code for Adoption Agreements sits behind that process, requiring companies to publish sector guidance and model adoption agreements that developers and self-lay organisations can work from.

What WIRS accreditation covers, and what it doesn’t

The Water Industry Registration Scheme is the accreditation water companies rely on when deciding whether a contractor’s work can be adopted, and it is currently administered by LRQA. Assessment covers the technical areas a self-lay organisation operates in, and the scheme exists so that an accredited firm is recognised across water companies rather than having to secure approval company by company. A developer can check any contractor’s current status on the WIRS register in about a minute.

Accreditation scope is where care is needed. WIRS registration is granted for specific activities, so a contractor accredited for service pipes is not automatically accredited for new mains, and a firm accredited for construction may not hold every category a particular scheme requires. Asking which categories a contractor holds, rather than asking whether they are accredited, is the question that separates a straightforward job from a stalled one. Accreditation also does not override the water company’s own technical standards, witnessing requirements or defect liability terms, all of which still apply.

Taking approved drawings to an accredited contractor

The most common misunderstanding in the whole process concerns approved drawings. A developer who has applied to the water company, paid for the scheme to be worked up and received approved drawings alongside a quotation has not committed to that company carrying out the construction. Approval attaches to the scheme, not to the contractor, and the contestable elements remain open.

That matters commercially because the approved drawings are a complete package: pipe sizes, routes, materials, fittings and connection points are all fixed and signed off. A developer holding those drawings can send them out for pricing exactly as any other subcontract package would go out, and compare like with like rather than comparing two different interpretations of the same site. Contractors working in this market, among them the Hertfordshire-based utility contractor McFadden Utilities, will provide an alternative quote for a new water connection against drawings the water company has already approved, with the water company retaining approval, inspection and adoption of the finished works throughout. The initial approach to the water company still comes from the developer, and the accredited contractor picks the process up from the point where the scheme is agreed.

None of this is adversarial. Water companies set the standards the assets have to meet and then carry those assets for the next century, which is why the assurance requirements are as detailed as they are. Many accredited self-lay organisations also work under contract to water companies on repair, maintenance and mains work, so the same crews turn up on both sides of the arrangement. Competition in this market was designed into it by the regulator rather than fought for against the companies.

Where the money and the time actually move

Cost differences in self-lay come from three places, and claims of dramatic savings usually rest on only one of them applying. The first is the construction price itself, which is a straightforward competitive tender once the drawings are fixed. The second is the asset payment, the sum a water company pays for the value of the infrastructure it adopts, which offsets against the developer’s costs and is calculated under the company’s published charging arrangements. The third is coordination, and on multi-utility sites it is often the largest of the three, because a single groundworks operation covering water alongside other services means one set of excavations, one reinstatement and one traffic management exercise rather than three.

Programme is the other reason developers look at self-lay, and the honest position is that self-lay moves the construction window into the developer’s control while leaving the application, approval and adoption stages where they always were. A contractor cannot compress the water company’s approval process, and any firm suggesting otherwise is worth a second look.

The questions worth asking before appointing

Four checks cover most of the risk. Confirm the contractor’s WIRS categories match the actual works. Confirm which elements the local water company treats as non-contestable, and who is pricing them. Confirm who is responsible for testing, chlorination, as-built records and defect remedy during the liability period. And confirm the reinstatement specification, because unsatisfactory reinstatement on an adopted highway becomes the developer’s problem long after the water is flowing.

Self-lay is not the right answer to every scheme. For a single connection off an existing main in a straightforward location, the water company’s own quotation is frequently the simplest route and the difference is marginal. For anything involving new mains, phased plots, awkward crossings or a tight build programme, a second price from an accredited contractor is cheap information, and the drawings a developer already holds are all that’s needed to get one.

Valter Pinto

Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the Intelligent Bio Solutions fireside chat. Thank you all for joining us today. My name is Valter Pinto, Managing Director at KCSA Strategic Communications. And today, I’m joined by Harry Simeonidis, President and CEO; and Peter Passaris, Vice President of Product Development. Earlier this month, the company submitted its 510(k) premarket notification package to the FDA for its intelligent Fingerprinting Drug Screening System, seeking clearance from the FDA to enter the U.S. market.

We’re hosting today’s call for management to have an opportunity to provide investors with more detail as to where we stand in the FDA process, more information regarding the data submitted to the FDA and provide a look ahead as to what to expect next. Before we begin, quickly, I’d like to remind everyone that statements made during today’s fireside chat may be deemed forward-looking statements within the meaning of the safe harbor of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

Actual results may differ materially due to a variety of risks, uncertainties and other factors. For a detailed discussion of some of the ongoing risks and uncertainties in the company’s business, I refer you to the company’s reports filed periodically with the SEC, including its annual report on Form 10-K and for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2026, and the investor materials under the company’s Investor Relations website.

The company undertakes no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law. I want to thank

This article was written by

Follow