Featured Post from Aston University

Budget 25 – initial reactions related to personal financial wellbeing

Professor Andy Lymer, director of the Centre for Personal Financial Wellbeing at Aston University, looks at what the latest UK government budget announcements mean for households

Dec 2, 2025

7 min

Andy Lymer


CaptionResizeWrap TextRemove


As the director of the Aston Centre for Personal Financial Wellbeing, and a professor of taxation, I obviously take particular interest in the annual budget day as it sets a tone for much of the personal finance changes that are likely to occur in the near future.


The lead up to this year’s budget had unprecedented levels of speculation with much of the press and commentators trying to get attention with ever more it seemed wilder guessing of what the chancellor might do – largely unhelpfully and worrying people and the markets unnecessarily. Almost all of this proved wide of the mark as the budget didn’t increase any of the main taxes at all, and where it might nudge National Insurance contributions (NICs) up for some, this won’t be for a few years and only in a small area (pension payments for employees) that won’t actually affect most people.


Small and cautious steps to reform

The reason for all this speculation of key changes needed was that everyone suspected there was a big hole in the national finances. This was shown not to be the case. In fact, predictions provided in the budget documents are we’d in fact be in budget surplus by the end of this parliament period even before the changes announced take effect. This was a surprise to many and meant the chancellor could actually focus on at least some small and cautious steps towards reforming how our tax, benefit and government spending systems work. What she proposed therefore is currently predicted will raise circa £26bn and give the government ‘head-room’ to cope with economic changes later rather than needed to fill a feared financial black hole now – good news all round!


This meant what we actually got was lots of smaller changes with fewer ‘rabbit out of a hat’ big tax surprises than we have had in recent years – a welcome steadying trend I hope will continue.


She also promised some short-term spending that can be paid for with a combination of extra borrowing now and with increased taxes later – again a trend of recent budgets. If these tax changes actually happen in the end, then it will be down to what happens between now and when these were proposed to commence – by no means a guarantee these will ever happen. Later budgets, or other rule changes in the future, could easily retract or counter them (all chancellors like to announce planned tax changes aren’t going to happen for obvious political gain reasons!).


Income tax changes

The largest share of the extra £26bn raised will come from extending the income tax thresholds for a further period – now to 2031. These have been fixed (at £12,570 for example for the point at which income tax starts to need to be paid on personal incomes) since at least 2023, some well before this. This matters, as, when wages rise due to inflation, people are not better off in reality (you get more income but things cost more), but may end up paying more tax than before as the thresholds haven’t increased with inflation to the same degree (what we call ‘fiscal drag’). As such, holding these thresholds fixed for longer will raise extra money for the government (predicted to be over £12bn a year in 2030-31 for example) – largely unnoticed as to many it doesn’t feel like the tax rise it clearly is.


CaptionResizeWrap TextRemove

The threshold fixing extension announced today will mean that as many as 700,000 more people will start to pay some income tax when they wouldn’t currently, and up to 1 million more people will start to pay higher rates of tax than currently – all without being actually better off in real terms. Some call this stealth tax, but it feels very real when it starts to affect you if your total taxable incomes fall near these threshold levels.


There were in total more than 70 other tax measure changes in this budget – a huge number and lots to get your head around. However, most of these will not affect most people and are relatively small in nature – targeted at making the tax system a little fairer (i.e. those on higher incomes, with more savings, dividends, receiving additional income from property they own etc – paying more taxes as a proportion of the total amount raised in tax from all sources). This is clearly welcome news (at least for those not being asked to pay this extra) in the current climate.


The biggest changes for financial wellbeing

As a research centre focusing on individual and family financial wellbeing, what do we think are the specifics announcements made that are most likely to affect people – several headline announcements are worth highlighting: - 


1.  The removal of the two-child limit on benefit eligibility is obviously a key headline – long touted as a key reason larger families are much more likely to be in poverty than smaller families. This is a key change that many Labour MPs wanted to see happen and the chancellor has delivered on it. This is very welcome news – although it won’t start to affect these families until after April 2026 to give time to bring these measures into place – but then predicted to lift 450,000 children out of poverty.


2.  As part of making the tax system more progressive, a brand-new tax was announced on very expensive houses in England – to be snappily called the High Value Council Tax Surcharge (or HVCTS) – although expect it to be called the ‘mansion tax’ by everyone! The UK’s main local tax (council tax) isn’t going to be reformed as such in this change – despite being the target of much speculation that it is just too regressive to leave unreformed any longer after we haven’t revalued houses in most of the UK since 1991. This will instead be an additional tax, commencing in April 28, on those whose properties are valued (now) at £2m or more – with higher rates rising to those with properties over £5m. Clearly this will affect relatively few in most of the UK (only expected to affect 1% of properties nationally), but will affect some and will raise extra revenues (expected to raise circa £400m+ a year) to directly support provision of local services – much needed in many parts of the UK.


3.  New taxes on electric cars – given fuel duty is not paid by those who drive electric cars (as they don’t buy petrol or diesel) there have been calls for new taxes to be charged to electric car drivers. While these cars may be better for the environment when driven, they continue to wear roads and contribute to congestion. The government is proposing a per mile charge from April 28 (to be called the Electric Vehicle Excise Duty or eVHD) for these vehicles which will be painful for electric car divers – not least as this cost as not known when purchase decisions were made. No-one likes a tax charged on something you have already made the decision to buy so expect this to be unpopular. It is proposed currently to cost EV drivers around £20/month – about half the rate of fuel duty on average – and expected to raise circa £2bn a year by 2030-31. I expect this tax will become more nuanced in future perhaps as technology enables perhaps different charges to be applied to use of congested city roads compared to open rural driving perhaps - we will see. 


4.  National Insurance deductibility for pension contributions via salary sacrifice schemes operated by many employers for their employees is to be capped at £2,000 (although only from April 29 – so no immediate effect). This now very widely used approach to making pension contributions if you are an employee that in effect avoids you having to pay NIC on this income going into your pension. For those with larger pension contributions the bit that can be made before NIC is due on the extra this will be capped in the future to £2,000 per year – again affecting those who receive higher pension contributions most and affecting those at the bottom of the income spectrum, little if at all (74% of employees are predicted not to be affected). Is this a breach of the Labour manifesto promises not to increase the main taxes? For some it certainly seems that way.


CaptionResizeWrap TextRemove


What didn’t happen?

There are many smaller measures to explore, or ones that are not coming into effect for the next year or more that might have been missed from the news headlines but that will almost certainly affect lots of people. To name just a few (including highlighting several things NOT going to happen – which will obvious not save people money per se, but help by not costing them more): -

  • above inflation increases to national minimum (‘living’) wage for all age groups from April 2026 (+4.1% for those over 21)– although still not raising this to ‘real living wage’ levels.
  • further extension of holding off on the 5p/litre fuel duty rise
  • not increasing prescription charges (staying at £9.90 for the next year)
  • confirming state pension rises by 4.8% from next April (worth £575/year)
  • confirming £150 winter fuel payments again this winter to over 6 million homes
  • freezing regulated rail fares – preventing the usual annual increases from January (the first time this has happened in 30 years)
  • extending the government’s Help to Save scheme to more benefit recipients than previously


No immediate impact for most

Overall, this is therefore probably a welcome budget for many, those on lower incomes will likely get the most from these measures, if all are applied as proposed, but most won’t see much of an immediate impact immediately – and with the largest benefit likely to all on larger families in receipt of benefits from next April.


Connect with:
Andy Lymer

Andy Lymer

Professor of Accounting

Professor Lymer is an expert in taxation, personal finance, financial wellbeing, savings policy development and applied business computing.

Financial LiteracyApplied Business ComputingBusiness ReportingHigher EducationTaxation
Powered by

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from Aston University

Major trial shows increasing bone density fails to cut fracture risk in brittle bone disease featured image

3 min

Major trial shows increasing bone density fails to cut fracture risk in brittle bone disease

An international clinical trial involving Aston University researchers has challenged long held assumptions about how brittle bone disease is treated in adults, after finding that substantially increasing bone density did not reduce the risk of fractures. The study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), examined whether a two stage treatment using the bone building drug teriparatide followed by the bone preserving drug zoledronic acid could reduce fractures in adults with osteogenesis imperfecta, often referred to as brittle bone disease, a rare genetic condition that causes bones to break easily throughout life. Researchers followed 349 adults treated at 27 specialist centres across the UK and Europe. While the treatment led to clear increases in bone density in the spine and hip, fracture rates were no lower than among patients receiving standard care, suggesting that bone quality may matter more than bone density alone in preventing fractures in people with the condition. The findings underline a key distinction between brittle bone disease and more common bone conditions such as osteoporosis, where increasing bone density is known to reduce fracture risk. In osteogenesis imperfecta, the study suggests that bones can become denser without becoming less likely to break, indicating that the underlying quality and structure of bone tissue may play a greater role in fracture risk than density alone. Dr Zaki Hassan Smith, an endocrinologist at Aston Medical School who contributed to the research, said: “This study shows that in osteogenesis imperfecta, simply increasing bone density doesn’t necessarily translate into fewer fractures. That’s important, because it tells us that the disease is more complex than what we see on a scan. The findings help shift the focus towards understanding bone quality and how bones behave in real life, which is essential if we are to develop more effective treatments that genuinely reduce harm for patients.” Osteogenesis imperfecta is a genetic condition that affects collagen, leaving bones fragile and prone to fracture throughout life. There is currently no licensed treatment specifically approved to prevent fractures in adults with the condition, and patients often experience repeated fractures, chronic pain and long term disability. The trial tested a sequential treatment strategy commonly used in osteoporosis, where a bone building drug is followed by a treatment designed to preserve gains in bone strength. Although this approach successfully increased bone density in people with osteogenesis imperfecta, it did not reduce fracture rates, suggesting that treatment strategies effective in osteoporosis may not directly translate to rare bone diseases. Researchers did observe improvements in some quality of life measures among participants receiving the treatment, including reduced pain interference and improved mobility. However, fracture prevention remained unchanged, reinforcing the need for new approaches that target the fundamental properties of bone in osteogenesis imperfecta rather than density alone. The study was led by the University of Edinburgh and funded by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Aston University contributed clinical and academic expertise through Aston Medical School as part of the large international collaboration, which involved specialist centres across the UK and Europe. The study was led by the University of Edinburgh, with Aston University contributing clinical and academic expertise as part of a wider international collaboration involving multiple specialist centres across the UK and Europe. The research was funded by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Researchers say the findings provide important guidance for future research, helping to steer efforts towards treatments that focus on bone quality, strength and resilience in everyday life. They also highlight the value of large scale clinical trials in rare diseases, where learning what does not reduce harm is an essential step towards better care. The paper, Teriparatide Plus Zoledronic Acid for Osteogenesis Imperfecta, is published in JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2026.6889

Why disaster recovery in the Himalayas needs a rethink featured image

3 min

Why disaster recovery in the Himalayas needs a rethink

After five weeks of fieldwork across Nepal, Bhutan and Northwest India, Aston University researcher Dr Komal Raj Aryal is calling for a more locally grounded approach to resilience and post-disaster recovery in one of the world’s most hazard-prone regions. What happens after the headlines fade from a disaster? That question sits at the heart of new field research led by Dr Komal Raj Aryal, Lecturer in Crisis and Disaster Management at Aston Business School. After returning from a five-week research visit across Nepal, Bhutan and Northwest India, Dr Aryal says the evidence points to a troubling reality: many communities remain highly vulnerable long after major recovery programmes are supposed to have helped them rebuild. The trip brought together field visits, stakeholder consultations and community observations linked to ongoing UKRI, NERC and ISPF-supported research on earthquake risk, disaster governance, resilience and post-disaster recovery in the Himalayan region. The aim was not only to understand current conditions, but to ask why repeated losses continue despite years of international development assistance, scientific research and investment. Across the region, the research found that resilience is being undermined by a combination of persistent governance challenges, fragmented institutions, weak local preparedness systems, livelihood insecurity and mounting environmental pressures. In other words, recovery is not simply about rebuilding infrastructure; it is about whether communities are genuinely better equipped to cope with the next shock. This challenge is especially striking in places still living with the legacy of the 2015 Nepal earthquakes, where long-term vulnerabilities remain visible despite the scale of international support directed towards recovery and reconstruction. Reflecting on his findings, Dr Aryal said: “One of the most striking observations from the field is that many communities affected by the 2015 Nepal Earthquakes continue to face similar vulnerabilities today, despite significant international support allocated for recovery and reconstruction. This raises important questions about how disaster recovery is planned, implemented, and sustained over time.” The fieldwork also highlighted the growing complexity of future disaster risks in the Himalayas. Large-scale earthquakes do not exist in isolation; they interact with environmental degradation, cascading hazards, climate-related stresses and rapid urbanisation in fragile mountain settings. He added: “The Himalayan region is entering a period of growing uncertainty where environmental change, socio-economic inequality, weak governance systems, and seismic risks are becoming increasingly interconnected. There is an urgent need to rethink conventional development approaches and invest more seriously in locally grounded, community-centred resilience strategies.” For Aston University, this work reflects a broader commitment to international research on disaster risk reduction, resilience governance and humanitarian response across South Asia. Aston researchers are working with government agencies, local authorities, universities, emergency responders and humanitarian organisations to strengthen evidence-based approaches to preparedness and recovery. The findings feed into wider international debates about sustainable development, climate resilience, risk communication and the future of disaster governance in vulnerable mountain regions. They also underline the importance of moving beyond short-term recovery models towards approaches that are participatory, practical and rooted in local knowledge. Dr Aryal’s research emphasises the value of integrating community knowledge, participatory governance, youth engagement and long-term livelihood security into resilience planning. As future collaborations and policy discussions develop, these themes are likely to be central to how the region prepares for the risks ahead. The recent fieldwork is expected to inform future international research partnerships, policy dialogue and resilience-focused initiatives between the UK and South Asian partners.

Aston University economists say Prime Minister can reduce UK trade vulnerability with China visit featured image

2 min

Aston University economists say Prime Minister can reduce UK trade vulnerability with China visit

Greenland episode exposed UK’s lack of effective response to economic coercion from allies Research shows tariff retaliation would have cost the average UK household up to £324 per year Economists say China visit is “portfolio risk management” – diversification reduces vulnerability. The Prime Minister’s visit to China – the first by a British PM since 2018 – is an opportunity to reduce the UK’s vulnerability to economic coercion, according to new research from Aston University. A policy paper from Aston Business School’s Centre for Business Prosperity analyses the January 2026 Greenland tariff episode, when President Trump threatened and then withdrew tariffs on eight European countries. The researchers found that the UK had no good options: retaliation would have made Britain worse off, while absorbing the tariffs left Europe without credible deterrence. Director of the centre for business prosperity, Professor Jun Du, said: “The Greenland episode was a wake-up call. When your principal security ally threatens economic coercion, the old assumptions about who is safe and who is dangerous no longer hold. “The PM’s China visit should be framed as portfolio risk management – building diversified trading relationships that reduce the UK’s exposure to any single partner. Just as investors don’t put all their money in one stock, countries shouldn’t put all their trade into one basket. A UK with multiple strong partnerships is harder to pressure, whether the pressure comes from Washington or Beijing.” The research found that coordinated UK–EU tariff retaliation would have cost British households up to £324 per year – the worst outcome modelled. But the authors argue that Europe has untapped leverage elsewhere: the US runs a €148 billion annual services surplus with the EU, and mutual investment exceeds €5.3 trillion. Associate professor of economics and co-author, Dr Oleksandr Shepotylo, said: “Tariff retaliation fails because it hurts consumers and distorts the economy – the retaliator suffers similarly to the target. But Europe has cards it isn’t playing. Services, investment screening, and regulatory access are pressure points where Europe can respond effectively.” UK exports to China fell by 10.4% in the year to Q2 2025, with goods exports down 23.1% – the sharpest decline among major trading partners. The researchers argue that this closes off the UK’s largest alternative market at precisely the moment US reliability is in question. The paper identifies three priorities for UK policy: Recognise the permanent incentives behind US tariffs. US tariff revenue hit $264 billion in 2025. Trade negotiations alone cannot resolve revenue-driven policy. Build UK–EU coordination on non-tariff instruments. Services, investment, procurement, and regulation offer leverage that tariffs do not. Treat China engagement as portfolio risk management. Concentration in any single market creates vulnerability. Diversification is not about picking sides – it’s about resilience. Professor Du added: “The question for the Prime Minister is whether to use this breathing space to build resilience – or wait for the next Greenland.” To read the policy paper in full, click on this link:

View all posts
Powered by