More stories

  • in

    Voices: Energy, water, council tax – how are you coping with rising bills this ‘awful April’? Join The Independent Debate

    Millions of households across the UK are bracing for yet another wave of price hikes, as bills for energy, water, council tax, and more increase from 1 April. Dubbed ‘awful April,’ these rising costs are putting even more pressure on household budgets, prompting fresh calls for government intervention.Energy bills for millions on standard variable tariffs will rise by an average of £111 a year, while water bills in some areas will jump by nearly 47 per cent. Council tax increases will also hit households across England, Scotland, and Wales, with some local authorities imposing hikes of almost 10 per cent. On top of this, the cost of road tax, broadband, and TV licences is also climbing.With so many expenses going up at once, we want to hear from you: Are you feeling the pinch? Have these rising costs affected your household, and what steps are you taking to manage?And crucially, has ‘awful April’ changed your view of Sir Keir Starmer’s government and Labour? Do you think the current government is doing enough to tackle the cost of living crisis?Vote in our poll or share your thoughts in the comments – we’ll feature the most compelling responses and share the results in the coming days.All you have to do is sign up and register your details – then you can take part in the discussion. You can also sign up by clicking ‘log in’ on the top right-hand corner of the screen. More

  • in

    Will families be £500 better off after Reeves’ Spring Statement? Here’s what experts say

    In her Spring Statement, Rachel Reeves promised that the average household would be “over £500 a year better off” under Labour – even after inflation. For millions feeling the pinch, it was a headline moment.As a positive, it was one for the chancellor to hang her hat on – though pales in comparison to 250,000 being sent into poverty by other cuts to the welfare bill.But how real is that £500? Is it money in your pocket, or just clever forecasting? Within minutes, the message had already started to shift – and the fine print tells a very different story.The first question is easy to answer in part: given the data was from the Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR), it should be trusted to have been arrived at in diligent fashion, factoring in the latest economic data to give Ms Reeves the headline that household disposable income was growing “at almost twice the rate” as had been forecast last year.However, there may have already been some revisionism on that within minutes – and the lack of clarity and consistency is arguably as concerning as any quickfire change – with Labour posting to social media that average households would be £500 better off in the final year of parliament, not each year. But the second part of the question is arguably more real for those families she’s talking about – and, sadly, it probably isn’t one they’ll be delighted by.It is not, of course, as though it means £500 is suddenly deposited in bank accounts or pockets.Some have even interpreted those words as being £500 better off across the entire course of parliament, with Martin Lewis of MoneySavingExpert.com surmising on social media from OBS notes that the sum is generated “over the life of parliament not per year.”“Most of it comes in the last two years, after [it] drops first, and is based on assumptions that some current tax proposals eg. freezing tax thresholds will end,” he continued.Economics experts are largely in agreement and even suggested the sums meant a more modest improvement of the national economy over the mid-term than Ms Reeves and co had initially been forecasting. Get a free fractional share worth up to £100.Capital at risk.Terms and conditions apply.Go to websiteGet a free fractional share worth up to £100.Capital at risk.Terms and conditions apply.Go to website“This is hardly ground breaking and I’m not sure anyone will or should be celebrating this modest increase,” Blick Rotherberg CEO Nimesh Shah told The Independent.“This, in itself, suggests that the economy is not going to grow to anywhere near the extent that Labour were promising when they came into government and the policies aren’t working – despite Rachel Reeves suggesting otherwise at the start of her Spring Statement.“Households being £500 a year better off [over the full term] is less than £2 per week. But sticky inflation will wipe that out with some ease.“When inflation remains high, interest rates aren’t coming down as quickly as expected and the economic growth has been halved, £500 in five years (an awfully long time away) doesn’t touch the sides and I don’t expect provides any encouragement.”As to exactly where that increase in money comes from, the outlook is uncertain – and it is a lower real income rise than families have seen previously too, says Oxford Economics analyst Michael Saunders.“The rise in real incomes per household comes from pay growth running slightly ahead of inflation, in the OBR’s forecast,” he told The Independent.“As to whether it matters: to put it in context, real disposable income per head in 2024 Q3 (the latest available data) was just 1.0 per cent above the 2019 level.“We don’t know what the per cent rise implied by the £500 is, but the OBR expect real disposable income per head to rise by 3.2 per cent from the end of 2024 to the start of 2031.“Will people notice this faster income? Perhaps, but its not going to transform things. From 1997 to 2007, real income rose by 27 per cent, so the OBR’s outlook is pretty low compared to that.” More

  • in

    Tax calculator: See how Rachel Reeves’ spring statement will affect you

    Rachel Reeves has unveiled a £14bn package to repair the UK economy in her spring statement, as the UK’s budget watchdog halved its forecast for economic growth to just one per cent.The chancellor confirmed a squeeze on the welfare budget and cuts to the civil service, while detailing a rise in defence spending and an increase in Universal Credit (UC).Wednesday’s statement saw Ms Reeves face criticism from the Conservatives, who claimed she had “tanked the economy” and was “reckless” with the fiscal headroom she had left herself with.There was no change announced to limits on the cash Isa as had been mooted, but newly announced changes to UC and the impending alterations to National Insurance Contributions and the minimum wage may still affect your financial position. Follow reaction to Ms Reeves’ statement here in our live blog.The Independent’s Budget calculator below, created by tax advisory firm Blick Rothenberg, will help you to determine whether you are better or worse off following Wednesday’s statement.Enter your details including how much you earn, marital status and family details to see how your finances will be affected. More

  • in

    Voices: What would you like to see from Rachel Reeves’ spring statement? Join The Independent Debate

    Rachel Reeves’ spring statement is fast approaching, bringing fresh debate about the future of living standards in the UK.A new forecast from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation suggests that average disposable incomes could fall by 3 per cent by 2030, with the lowest earners affected the most.The chancellor has hinted at spending cuts to address a £20bn gap in public finances while ruling out tax rises as a solution. Welfare budgets, local government funding, and other public services are all under scrutiny as departments look to reduce spending.Some argue that difficult decisions are necessary to maintain economic stability and avoid a repeat of Liz Truss’s mini-budget. Others warn that prioritising spending cuts over tax reform could further strain struggling families, making it harder for Labour to meet its pledge to improve living standards.With big decisions ahead, we want to hear from you: What do you want to see in the spring statement? Should Reeves introduce measures to protect living standards, such as targeted support for low-income households? Should she focus on economic growth and job creation through investment in infrastructure and skills? Or would you like to see tax reform, closing loopholes and raising revenue in a different way? Perhaps public services investment should take priority, ensuring the NHS, education, and local councils have the funding they need.What should the chancellor’s top priority be? Vote in our poll below and share your thoughts in the comments – we’ll feature the most compelling responses and share the results in the coming days.Get a free fractional share worth up to £100.Capital at risk.Terms and conditions apply.Go to websiteGet a free fractional share worth up to £100.Capital at risk.Terms and conditions apply.Go to websiteAll you have to do is sign up and register your details – then you can take part in the discussion. You can also sign up by clicking ‘log in’ on the top right-hand corner of the screen. More

  • in

    Voices: Readers clash over Labour’s benefit reforms – from ‘Right to Try’ scheme to making work pay

    Sir Keir Starmer’s proposed benefit cuts have sparked a heated debate among Independent readers, with opinions deeply divided over the government’s approach to welfare reform. A recent poll revealed that 68 per cent of readers do not support the proposed changes, fearing they will disproportionately harm disabled and chronically ill individuals.When we asked for your views, readers feared the reforms ignore the realities of long-term illness, with fluctuating conditions making rigid assessments unfair. A minority of readers supported the reforms, agreeing that the welfare system needs change and that too many people are claiming benefits unnecessarily. While some welcomed the “Right to Try” scheme, they stressed the need for long-term support. Others agreed with the government’s position that work provides purpose and identity and that more should be done to support people in returning to employment.Here’s what you had to say:Right to Try scheme a very welcome additionI have been supported by both ESA and PIP for the last five years due to multiple long-term physical, mental, and neurodivergent conditions that affect everything from my joints, immune system, executive function, and social interaction.These benefits have allowed me to keep living independently – something that, being in my 40s, has been essential to my well-being – and has also meant I’ve not needed to access social housing or other support services.I would love to be able to do something constructive with the little energy and ability I have left after doing essential life chores, but I would need assurances that I would be able to access suitable long-term support to do so — and that, I think, is my number one concern with any change in the benefit process.The Right to Try scheme is a very welcome addition, and I think it will encourage more people to re-enter the workforce. Many long-term health conditions can fluctuate in their symptoms and can also be affected by stress and anxiety, which can bring on “flare-ups” — a worsening of these symptoms. Where you’re unlucky enough to have multiple conditions, these flare-ups can cause a domino effect, each one affecting the other, leaving you unable to even fulfil self-care needs. The process of claiming benefits is arduous and stressful, sometimes taking up to six months, and I can speak from experience that the prospect of going through it all again if it turns out that the role you choose is causing you harm is so distressing that it makes you avoid thinking about it.Get a free fractional share worth up to £100.Capital at risk.Terms and conditions apply.Go to websiteGet a free fractional share worth up to £100.Capital at risk.Terms and conditions apply.Go to websiteI also think JSA and ESA should be merged to allow for cross-channel support and function, with the added benefit of likely cutting a lot of unnecessary red tape on all sides.immiscibilityReassessment stressI have real concerns about the changes that may be coming. I know from experience of helping and supporting a family member who has been sick since childhood with physical disabilities. The stress and fear every time reassessment takes place is overwhelming. Physical abilities decrease, but we have to fight all the time. Assessments should be videoed. No account is taken of good and bad days and extra costs, e.g. buying pre-grated cheese because you can’t grate it, or ready-chopped veg because you can’t cut. Again, it seems to be demonising and punitive to everyone.GillywicksCancer treatmentI watched Streeting on Sunday tell a story of a friend with cancer who was offered sick leave, but felt well enough to work, and did. Streeting concluded that many should be working instead of going on leave. I too have cancer and currently have radiation treatment, and I am working. But I would never suggest others do so. For a start, it is job dependent, as in many jobs it is not acceptable to be sleepy or fatigued. For others, psychological factors will come into play. Streeting should rely on doctors to decide and busy himself with developing plans, which he will need more than ever after deleting NHS England.MpWork gives purpose and identityThe government is right in that work gives us purpose, identity, and often somewhere to make social connections. Children and young people are our future, so while reform is needed it should not be about cost-cutting but about those investments that are required for people to have jobs that will give them a rich and fulfilling life.IthinkweknowtheanswertothatNot a lifestyle choiceI am in disbelief that I am reading these headlines under a Labour government.I worked from the age of 13, I worked through college and university, I worked whilst pregnant and returned to work when both babies were 10 months old. I am now 40. My eldest son has ASD and ADHD; he has an ECP (Education, Health and Care Plan) which I fought tooth and nail for. He requires medication and a different type of support and parenting than a neurotypical child of the same age. He is doing well, but it has taken a lot of work, balance, and proactive advocacy from me to safeguard his care and well-being. A tip in that balance means a spiral into crisis, non-verbalism, school refusal, self-harm, and food rejection. I get CA and DLA for him.A few years before he was diagnosed, I too was diagnosed with an inherited cancer called Lynch Syndrome, which led to me having a total hysterectomy at 32. Within seven months, I was in excruciating muscular and joint pain, I was regularly falling, I was forgetting information and struggling to recall simple details like my own name, I was fatigued to the point of collapse, I started experiencing tremors, spasms, and intense migraines. I became hypersensitive to sound and smell and my mental health plummeted.I was diagnosed with fibromyalgia, a much-maligned and misunderstood illness. My life completely changed. At work, I was unreliable, making mistakes; I couldn’t concentrate, and I was often too weak to move. When I could work, I would be getting calls from the school. I lost my job. I fought for PIP. My husband works over 50 hours a week. I am not lazy, I am not a scrounger; I am a woman with an illness trying to keep my head above water and keep my son healthy at the same time. I feel sick with nerves. I’d be £25k better off in work. This isn’t a lifestyle choice.SarahintheshireCutting the number of claimantsThere is a need to cut the cost of the welfare budget. That can be achieved in two ways: either by cutting the individual benefits or by cutting the number of claimants.I favour the latter; far too many claimants are fiddles and need to be weeded out.MORDEYFailure to understand cause and effectThere seems to be a real failure to understand cause and effect, both from Starmer’s Labour and the Conservatives before them. If they are genuinely concerned about increasing numbers of people needing to claim disability benefits, they ought to be looking at the reasons why — Long COVID, mental ill health exacerbated by current affairs, lack of access to physical and mental health care, and the general inaccessibility of workplaces of all kinds for disabled people. If they’re concerned about financial deficits, they ought to be ensuring that major corporations like Google and Amazon contribute their fair share in tax to pay for the public infrastructure they depend on to operate in the UK. Treating disabled people as costs to be managed is callous. Expecting disabled people to work themselves into an early grave just to be less of an economic “burden” is reprehensible. “Evil begins when you begin to treat people as things.”JunoTax the wealthiest properlyWhy on earth can’t this government tax the wealthiest properly so that they spend the same amount in GDP terms as the poorest do?I understand that the benefits bill is ballooning out of control and, yes, target benefit fraud, but I think it’s an utter disgrace that they’re planning on targeting the most vulnerable in society under the guise of “extra support.”The Treasury would earn far more if they also targeted the tax evaders and avoiders.A crying shame that just when we need this Labour government to succeed, they’re alienating the very people who voted for them.Don’t get me wrong, I would NEVER vote Reform or Tory within my lifetime, but Labour really need to become the socialist government that we elected them to be and stop pandering to the RW media.AmySubstantive questions on disability benefitsWhere in the debate about disability benefits are the substantive questions?Questions like: why is being disabled more expensive than being able-bodied, and on average by how much?How is cutting a non-out-of-work benefit — PIP — going to increase the number of people employed when it will most likely lead to disabled employees losing their jobs?Why are workplaces so significantly stressful, and why aren’t more employers doing more to create less stressful and healthier workplaces?Given that the very richest have seen their already immense wealth soar over the past several years, why are they allowed to escape paying their fair share towards repairing the nation’s economy and public finances?What kind of moral arguments can legitimately be claimed by privileged, often well-off or very well-off politicians who decide to implement policies that attack the most vulnerable and poorest in society?DisgustedOfMiddleEnglandIt’s a cut, not reformIt’s not “reform” if you start from a pre-decided amount of money you want to save. It’s a cut.More sympathetic assistance to help those who can and want to get back into work is fine (and should, of course, have been happening already), but that needs to be in place and bedded in before any “reform” to payments is even considered.Otherwise, it’s a cut.MaxcastleNo balancing the booksThere’s no “balancing the books” as, despite what Thatcher claimed, managing an economy is nothing like managing a household budget. All Starmer, Reeves, and Kendall are doing is implementing unfinished Tory policy on welfare. And these red Tories are reigniting the tradition of demonising the disabled.So many people with disabilities want to work. You’d be hard-pressed to know this the way Starmer et al. are talking. Apparently, it’s moral to cut benefits for the disabled, but not moral to fail to follow through with the promise while in opposition to impose a wealth tax. And Labour are pretty much denying the existence of disability. That’s going too far.BenitasWho is going to employ these people?People who have gone through the most invasive work capability tests, and who are found totally unfit for any work, are really ill people. Now, all of a sudden, they are to have monies taken from them and be forced to look for work — just who is going to employ these ill people?Many people are on prescription drugs that don’t allow them to operate mechanical things or drive; they leave people feeling drowsy, i.e., painkillers — again, who is going to employ these people?RamnedMake work payWhat’s the truth? Just how much do the sick and disabled get paid? What sanctions, tests, and exams do they have to face? I think most of those on the sick are in, or are very close to, poverty — but give me facts! And maybe, with the soaring cost of living, the government should have a good look at making work pay again — that might help get people back to work!HeadsgoneCost of living and workers’ wagesAverage workers do not get a decent wage; food, fuel, goods prices, and energy prices are gigantically high. These are the factors that the government should be looking at to tackle and balance the scale, so people can afford to spend more.WorkerLabour has turned its backLooks to me that the Labour Party has turned its back on those who support them. I already rescinded my party membership when Corbyn was kicked out. They are going to be clobbered in the next GE. Perhaps for the first time ever I will vote Green.AlexBRSome of the comments have been edited for this article for brevity and clarity. You can read the full discussion in the comments section of the original article here.The conversation isn’t over. To join in, all you need to do is register your details, then you can take part in the discussion. You can also sign up by clicking ‘log in’ on the top right-hand corner of the screen.Make sure you adhere to our community guidelines, which can be found here. For a full guide on how to comment click here. More

  • in

    Voices: Is Labour’s welfare reform going too far – or is it necessary to balance the books? Join The Independent Debate

    Labour’s welfare reforms, set to be announced on Tuesday, are already sparking debate — hailed by some as essential to fixing a “broken system” but feared by others as a threat to vulnerable people.Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall has outlined plans to overhaul sickness benefits, aiming to reduce the number of people classed as unable to work. This includes revising eligibility for Personal Independence Payment (PIP), potentially limiting access for some claimants.A key proposal is a “right to try” scheme, allowing those with health conditions to attempt employment without the immediate risk of losing their benefits. The government also plans early intervention for young people with mental health conditions and improvements to access-to-work support.Supporters argue these changes are necessary to reduce economic inactivity and curb the rising benefits bill, projected to reach £377.7 billion by 2029/30. However, critics, including Labour MPs and charities, warn that up to a million people could see their benefits reduced, worsening poverty and hardship.Now it is time to have your say. Are Labour’s reforms responsible, or do they risk harming those who need support most? And if not this, what else could the government do to balance the books?Vote in our poll or share your thoughts in the comments – we’ll feature the most compelling responses and share the results in the coming days.All you have to do is sign up and register your details – then you can take part in the discussion. You can also sign up by clicking ‘log in’ on the top right-hand corner of the screen. More

  • in

    ‘They’ve lost my trust’: consumers shun companies as bosses kowtow to Trump

    In late January, Lauren Bedson did what many would likely find unthinkable: she cancelled her Amazon Prime membership. The catalyst was Donald Trump’s inauguration. Many more Americans are planning to make similar decisions this Friday.Bedson made her move after seeing photos of Jeff Bezos, the Amazon founder, sitting with other tech moguls and billionaires, including Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg and Google’s Sundar Pichai, just rows behind Trump at his inauguration.“I just couldn’t stand to see them so cowardly,” Bedson, of Camas, Washington, told the Guardian. “I lived in Seattle for over a decade. I was a fan of Amazon for a long time, I think they have a good product. But I’m just so disgusted. I don’t want to give these billionaire oligarchs any more of my money.”It’s a sentiment that many Americans have been feeling since Trump entered the White House. Companies and business leaders who were once passive or vocally critical of Trump are now trying to cozy up to him, leading consumers to question the values of the brands they used to trust. A recent Harris poll found that a quarter of American consumers have stopped shopping at their favorite stores because of shifting political stances.Many are being inspired by calls to boycott coming from social media. One boycott has gone viral over the last few weeks: a “blackout” of companies that dropped some of their diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) goals, including Target, Amazon and Walmart, is planned for 28 February with protesters planning to halt all spending at these corporations for the day.View image in fullscreenBut people are also making the decision to boycott at their kitchen tables, trying to figure out how to resist Trump, and perhaps corporate capitalism at large, within their own communities.The Guardian asked readers how their shopping habits have changed over the last few months, as the political climate started to shift after Trump’s win. Hundreds from across the country said that they have stopped shopping at stores such as Walmart and Target that publicly announced the end of DEI goals. Dozens like Bedson had cancelled long held Prime accounts. Others have shut down their Facebook and Instagram accounts in protest of Meta.“I’m just trying to do little things that make me feel a little bit empowered, to stake my claim against what’s happening and how companies are acting in ways that are opposed to my values,” said Kim Wohlenhaus, of St Louis, Missouri, who cancelled her Prime membership, deleted her Meta accounts and has stopped shopping at Target. “It feels good to be able to do something.”Erica Bradley, of Reno, Nevada, said she stopped shopping at Target because of their changing DEI policies.“I don’t plan on going there ever again, just because I feel like they’ve shown that they’re not really committed to these things,” Bradley said. “They’ve lost my trust.”View image in fullscreenFor many consumers, the shift away from the big companies has revealed how much they have come to rely on them. As of last spring, 75% of American consumers had Amazon Prime memberships, a total of 180m Prime accounts, according to Bloomberg.Bedson said cancelling her account made her aware of a culture of consumerism in American where “in some ways, it feels like we don’t have a choice”.“Amazon is so convenient,” she said. “I think we all have become very complacent or complicit, and it’s hard to make these changes. But on the other hand, what else can we do?”It’s been a year since Bradley cancelled her Prime account, after she saw Amazon’s union busting. She recalls a transition period as she was adjusting to life without Prime, but it ultimately led her to spend less overall.“I just decided I don’t really need a lot of these things. Like I don’t need more clothes, I don’t really need more house decorations, which are things I used to spend a lot of money on,” Bradley said. “It’s not retail therapy anymore.”The Harris poll found that a third of Americans are similarly trying to “opt out” of the economy, cutting down on overall spending as the political stances of corporations have become murky.View image in fullscreen“It’s like a Whac-a-Mole now,” Wohlenhaus said. “You could really look in any direction and find something you dislike about the way corporations are caving to this administration.”Wohlenhaus said she has started to prioritize shopping at local businesses. She kept her Costco membership, since the company affirmed its DEI policies.During Joe Biden’s presidency, many of the boycotts against companies actually came from conservatives who felt corporations were caving to a “woke” mob. But boycotts didn’t amount to any serious consequences – with two exceptions. Bud Light saw a drop in sales after it sponsored a post by a transgender influencer and Target removed some of its Pride merchandise after conservative backlash.It’s unclear what the consequences of the current backlash will be. But Wohlenhaus and others voiced optimism that consumers are thinking critically about the choices they’re making at checkout.“Hopefully if thousands of other families are doing what we’re doing, I think they’ll start to feel it,” she said. “We don’t care about your products as much as we care about those values that we cherish.” More

  • in

    UK marketplace sellers face ‘second Brexit’ hit from Trump’s US import rules

    Many UK-based independent sellers on marketplaces such as eBay and Amazon could suffer a significant hit to US sales from planned changes to import rules under Donald Trump, with experts comparing the impact to a second Brexit.The new rules, which mean all parcels originating or made in China and being sold into the US must pay import duty – of as much as 15% on fashion items – and an additional 10% tariff, are also expected to impact bigger online clothing retailers such as Asos and Boohoo.The changes were introduced at the start of February in an attempt to protect US retailers from a surge in competition from the likes of Chinese online marketplaces Shein and Temu, but were indefinitely paused after the US customs service struggled to cope with the massive increase in parcels requiring checks last week.However, they are expected to be implemented within the coming months, potentially driving up prices for US consumers and hitting sales for online retailers.Before the change, parcels with a value of less than $800 (£635) shipped to individuals in the US were exempt from import tax and did not pass through the usual customs checks. That scheme, originally designed to help smooth online shopping, is being revoked after it emerged that the number of shipments under the “de minimis” rules had ballooned to more than 1bn, valued at $54.5bn by 2023 – most of them from China or Hong Kong via firms including Shein and Temu.“You are looking at an increase of $30 to $50 per consignment [group of parcels],” said Brad Ashton at the advisory firm RSM. “It is creating a perfect storm for online retailers putting goods into the US market. It has a lot of the hallmarks of Brexit in terms of its potential impact on small traders.“Businesses will see their margins eroded because costs will increase. We may get to a point where the changes make a UK business uncompetitive in selling to the US.”The widespread use of Chinese factories for many British brands, particularly in fashion, means businesses such as Asos and Boohoo will be drawn in, as well as many UK independent marketplace sellers.It will not just affect goods made in China and then sent from the UK, but potentially a much wider array, as any package containing even one product made in China may have to pay import tax and pass through customs checks, further increasing costs, according to experts.There is also an expectation that the de minimis rules will eventually be scrapped for all imports, no matter their origin.About $5bn worth of parcels were exported to the US from the UK under de minimis rules in 2021, according to a Congressional Research Service analysis of data from US Customs and Border Protection. About 80% of that was estimated to be related to online retail, with fashion likely to be a large proportion of it.Chris White, at the logistics company Fulfilmentcrowd, said that during the brief period when the rules were in place in early February, one-third of the parcels it shipped to the US from the UK were found to be of Chinese origin and subject to the new taxes.Fast-fashion specialists Asos and Boohoo sell about £300m of clothing a year to the US. Both are already struggling to compete with the rise of Shein and high street retailers, which have revived after the Covid pandemic. John Stevenson, a retail analyst at Peel Hunt, said Asos and Boohoo would have to “adjust prices or take a view on [the] profitability of operating in the US”.As well as the higher tax charges, customs checks required after the rule change will add as much as two days to the processing of orders, making UK retailers less competitive with US-based operators on the speed of delivery.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionStevenson said the hit to Asos and Boohoo was “not business-critical” in the way it could be for Shein or Temu, which he believed were heavily reliant on the tax benefit, but that it would have an impact.In the short term, online sellers will probably have lower sales because of uncertainty among US shoppers over possible taxes. White said that during the period when the new rules were in place, similar parcels were loaded with different levels of duty as local customs officers made different decisions.He said a further element of the rule change might be to expose brands that were “trading on an image of being British or European” as being “made in China and not Savile Row”, potentially damaging their appeal.There would be “lots of crossed fingers and puzzled faces” over the changes in legislation, with retailers potentially opening more US warehousing or, longer term, to switch sources of supply, White added.Boohoo closed its US warehouse earlier this year, and Asos is scheduled to close its facility there in November. However, a reversal could be on the cards if the de minimis rules are confirmed. Many fast-fashion companies have already diversified their supply chains – making more in India, Bangladesh or Turkey. Trump’s tax changes could accelerate this further.Shein is reportedly incentivising Chinese suppliers to set up in Vietnam, according to a report by Bloomberg.It is not clear when the new rules might be implemented as the US tries to put the technology and workforce in place to handle the new system. Experts say it could take weeks or months.While there is a chance that Trump will change his mind, as he has done on tariffs with Canada and Mexico, no business can bet on which way the US might jump. More