It is often said that politics makes strange bedfellows, but nowhere is that clearer than in debates about taxation. Despite the common assumption that the wealthy always rail against paying more, a growing number of high-earning business leaders are publicly stating the opposite. Meanwhile, many low earners – particularly on the political right – remain steadfastly opposed to tax rises of any kind. The result is a political landscape that can feel upside-down.
The latest example comes from the energy sector. Chris O’Shea, chief executive of Centrica, the parent company of British Gas, has said plainly that he would be “happy to pay more” tax, describing that position as only fair. It is a striking declaration from a man whose pay package totalled £4.3m last year.
Mr O’Shea argued that the cost of decarbonising the energy system should be removed from household bills altogether and funded instead through general taxation. His reasoning is simple: using taxes would make the system more progressive. Those with, in his words, “the broadest shoulders” would contribute more, easing the burden on lower-income households.
According to O’Shea, removing current levies – which pay for national grid upgrades and other policy measures – would cut around £200 from the average annual household bill. At present, only 39.3p of every pound on an energy bill actually pays for energy itself. The rest is swallowed up by policy costs (13.4p), infrastructure (22.6p), and operating costs (11p), figures which have drawn increasing attention since Ofgem raised the price cap last Friday. Notably, this latest rise was driven not by wholesale energy prices but by policy costs, including the construction of the Sizewell C nuclear power station.
Yet Mr O’Shea’s stance has not endeared him to the regulator. He criticised Ofgem for being focused “more on micromanagement than on growth.” In response, Ofgem defended its record, pointing to record-high customer satisfaction, significantly improved financial resilience across the sector, and ongoing government reviews of its remit. The regulator says it intends to move toward more outcome-based regulation, promising to work more collaboratively with suppliers as the energy system evolves.
A curious divide
The broader public reaction to O’Shea’s comments highlights an intriguing divide. Polling over recent years suggests many high earners would willingly shoulder higher taxes if the proceeds were transparently targeted at social or environmental improvements. Yet among sections of the working class – particularly those aligned with right-leaning politics – the very idea of higher taxation remains politically toxic.
The reasons are complex. Some cite distrust in how governments spend money. Others feel that any tax rise, however progressive on paper, eventually finds its way back to ordinary households. For people who already live close to the financial edge, even the idea of paying more tax can trigger anxiety, regardless of whether they personally would.
A strange world indeed
So we find ourselves in a situation where multimillion-pound chief executives call for higher taxes on themselves, while low-income voters often fight against the very idea. It may be a strange world, but it reflects a deeper truth: attitudes to tax are shaped less by simple arithmetic and more by trust, lived experience, and political identity.
Perhaps, as the debate over energy bills shows, the more pressing question is not who wants higher taxes, but whether the current system is serving the people who need help the most.
