I've been thinking, ever since Burnham became PM, that this would be the route he'd choose. Which was cemented recently by the strong receipts we had from CGT over the last tax year. I think O'Neill is right, and it's worth spelling out why this option "looms." It isn't because it's good policy, it's because it's the last door they haven't nailed shut themselves. They can't reform welfare, because there will be a backbench rebellion. They won't touch the triple lock, because the electoral arithmetic makes it difficult. They ruled out the three big taxes in the manifesto, which are the only ones that can really move the needle on yet another "black hole." So the path of least resistance takes them, almost mechanically, to capital gains. Because it's the biggest option left, and they'll say there's a moral case underpinning their decision, which they'll attempt to sell hard to the public. But take a look at the economy they'd be doing this to. Britain has sat at or near the bottom of the G7 for business investment for most of the last 30 years. We are a country desperately short of exactly the things capital gains tax falls on. Risk taking, business formation, people backing an idea with their own money and their own years. And those strong receipts we saw recently? CGT brought in around £22bn last year, up 62%, and still only around 2% of total receipts. But look at why… disposals pulled forward ahead of rate rises, allowance cuts, and reliefs being wound down. Landlords selling before the Renters' Rights Act. Owners selling before BADR rates went up. This isn’t a stable tax base that suggests bumper tax receipts in the future, it’s people getting out of investments now before they get hammered. CGT is the most behaviourally sensitive tax we have, because if you equalise it with income tax, people don't queue up to pay 45% on years or decades of risk. They'll defer the sale, they'll restructure, or they'll leave. My prediction, if they raise CGT, is that the revenue received will severely underperform, but the real damage will be the signal they put out there… this is not a country that rewards effort and risk-taking. And that's the real cost… the founder who doesn't start, the investor who allocates elsewhere, and the quiet mental recalibration of what trying is actually worth in this country. As Laffer puts it, if you tax something, you get less of it. Tax investment heavily and you'll get less investment. In my view, this is one of the most dangerous paths the government could take when it comes to taxation. Sadly, it's the one I think they'll take. If this is what happens in the next budget, Burnham will need to be pushed hard on what the vision for this country is. Because if you tax investment punitively, you've got to wonder what the future here looks like. So what’s the vision? What’s the payoff? What amazing change will this deliver the country? Because right now, to me, it looks like Labour keep painting themselves into a corner where the only solution they have is major tax hikes every budget. To say I'm concerned would be a massive understatement.