Andy Burnham, the front-runner to succeed Sir Keir Starmer as prime minister, has spent years making a single argument with unusual consistency: that Britain taxes work too heavily and wealth too lightly.
After his Makerfield by-election victory and Starmer’s resignation, that argument has stopped being a talking point on the fringes of his party and become a question the City, the boardroom and the family business are all now being forced to answer.
The shift carries “considerable consequences for households, businesses, investors and the economy,” warns Nigel Green, chief executive of deVere Group, one of the world’s largest independent financial advisory organisations. His intervention lands as investors increasingly weigh what a Burnham government could mean for taxation, investment, property, wealth creation and Britain’s competitiveness, at a moment when global capital has more choice than at any point in living memory.
Burnham has long held that the country leans too hard on taxing earnings, while accumulated wealth, assets and property should shoulder a greater share. As he moves closer to Downing Street, those instincts are migrating from the political margins to the centre of the economic debate. The unease is already measurable: Business Matters has reported that eight in ten SME owners fear what an Andy Burnham premiership would mean for their business.
“Andy Burnham’s seemingly unstoppable ascent to the top of British politics marks one of the most significant moments for investors in years,” Green says. “For the first time in a generation, Britain could soon have a prime minister whose political instinct is to look at wealth and ask whether it should be paying more. This matters because the answer doesn’t just affect the wealthy. It affects investment, jobs, business formation and economic growth.”
Burnham has not proposed a wealth tax, an exit tax or any specific package aimed at private wealth. Yet investors are already training their attention on the areas most exposed if a future government tried to tilt the burden away from earnings and towards assets.
“Capital gains tax, inheritance tax, property taxation, investment income and larger estates are all featuring more prominently in discussions taking place across financial markets,” Green notes. “The prospect of a government placing greater emphasis on the taxation of wealth is already triggering discussions among investors, entrepreneurs and business owners about the future direction of policy.”
The questions extend to council tax, stamp duty and land taxation. Burnham has previously backed property tax reform and has been linked to calls to replace the current council tax system with approaches tied more closely to underlying land values. Whether those ideas survive contact with the Treasury is another matter, and as Business Matters has explored, the case for whether Burnham can win over Britain’s entrepreneurs is far from settled.
He inherits a difficult backdrop: weak growth, stretched public finances and mounting spending pressure. Public sector debt sits close to the size of the entire economy, while the bills for healthcare, pensions, infrastructure and defence keep climbing. Against that, any government faces hard choices about where to find revenue without choking off growth, a tension already visible in reports that the Treasury is weighing inheritance and capital gains tax reforms to plug a budget gap.
“Governments are right to pursue fairness,” Green says. “But fairness and competitiveness must coexist. The danger is that Britain drifts into a mindset where wealth creation becomes viewed with suspicion rather than encouragement.”
Britain remains one of the world’s leading destinations for investment, underpinned by deep capital markets, strong institutions, legal certainty and London’s standing as a global financial centre. But the competition has sharpened. Financial centres across Europe, the Middle East and Asia are actively courting entrepreneurs, investors and internationally mobile families.
“Investors around the world are watching Britain and asking a simple question: is this a country becoming more attractive to capital or less,” Green says. “The answer will determine where money flows next.”
The implications reach well beyond headline rates. Family business succession, property ownership structures, pension arrangements, investment portfolios and estate planning could all face greater scrutiny if future governments decide wealth should contribute a larger share of receipts.
“Britain already taxes capital gains. It already taxes inheritance. It already taxes property. It already taxes investment income,” Green observes. “The question is now whether a Burnham government would push further. And that’s precisely why investors are paying such close attention.”
The numbers explain the stakes. According to the Office for National Statistics, privately owned wealth in Great Britain stands at roughly £13.6 trillion, more than six times annual national income, with property, pensions and financial assets making up the overwhelming majority. That wealth is also highly concentrated: House of Commons Library analysis shows the wealthiest tenth of households hold around 41 per cent of the total, a concentration that fuels the argument that assets should do more of the fiscal heavy lifting.
For households, the consequences would stretch far past the ultra-wealthy. Changes to inheritance tax reshape family succession. Reforms to property taxation touch homeowners and landlords. Adjustments to capital gains alter the economics of investing and entrepreneurship. Pension tax relief and investment income could also be drawn in if policymakers hunt for revenue while shielding taxes on work.
“There’s a growing belief inside parts of politics that wealth represents an easy answer to difficult fiscal questions,” Green says. “History teaches us it’s rarely that simple. The more aggressively governments pursue existing wealth, the greater the risk they discourage future wealth creation.”
His core worry is the direction of travel. “Businesses invest for years ahead. Investors allocate capital for decades ahead. If they conclude Britain is becoming less welcoming to enterprise, they’ll adjust accordingly. A generation ago, wealth was relatively captive. Today it is very much mobile. It compares jurisdictions, tax systems and governments. And it moves.”
As momentum builds behind Burnham, Green frames the moment as a defining economic test. “Andy Burnham believes wealth should carry more of the burden. It’s a belief that has taken him a long way in politics. Now investors are asking what happens if it starts shaping government.”
“There’s a world of difference between saying wealth should pay more and designing policies that achieve it without damaging investment, entrepreneurship and growth,” he concludes. “That is the challenge waiting on the desk of any future prime minister Burnham. He is forcing a national conversation about who should pay more, work or wealth. Investors are asking whether Britain will end up paying the price.”
