Sir James Dyson critiques proposed inheritance tax changes, terming them damaging to family enterprises.
- The new policy includes a 20% tax on family businesses and farms over £1 million from 2026.
- Dyson argues the tax could dismantle the foundation of British family businesses.
- Critics, including Dyson, warn of job losses and declining entrepreneurship.
- The government defends the tax as a necessity to fund public services and address financial shortfalls.
Sir James Dyson has voiced strong opposition to new inheritance tax regulations proposed by Rachel Reeves, describing them as detrimental to the future of family-run businesses. The new measures would impose a 20% tax on family-owned enterprises and farms valued over £1 million, effective April 2026. According to Dyson, this could signify a severe blow to British entrepreneurship.
Writing in The Times, Dyson accused the policy of potentially ‘killing off established family businesses.’ He warns that the so-called ‘Family Death Tax’ could hinder long-term business sustainability and deter new business ventures. Dyson believes that no business could endure under such a fiscal burden, foreseeing possible job losses in a sector traditionally rooted in stability and generational commitment.
In response, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper defended the budgetary changes, arguing they are essential to rectify the nation’s public finances. Cooper emphasized that these adjustments were indispensable for supporting public services like the NHS. The changes are part of a broader £40 billion tax increase strategy intended to bolster the country’s economic foundations.
Despite governmental justifications, the policy has attracted criticism from various sectors. The National Farmers Union, for instance, expressed concerns about the tax’s impact on agricultural businesses. Tom Bradshaw cautioned that such financial pressures could lead to a mental health crisis among farmers, many of whom fear they may need to sell or drastically alter their operations.
Rachel Reeves argued that the abolition of agricultural property relief primarily affects ‘the wealthiest landowners’ and deemed it unsustainable under current economic conditions. By redirecting these funds to public services, Reeves claims it will benefit all, including those in rural areas. As local elections loom, Labour faces pressure to adequately address the unique needs of rural voters and family businesses.
The inheritance tax reforms continue to stir debate, highlighting the tension between economic growth and fiscal responsibility.
