Labour claims Sunak 'lied' about £2,000 tax hike - but refuses to say what we WILL pay

I'd have more sympathy, if Labour came clean and told us which taxes they actually were going to increase. So far, they're refusing to say. It's almost as if they're trying to hide something.

Sunak got a little carried away during Tuesday night’s debate. He said figures showing Labour would increase the UK tax burden by a massive £38.5billion in total had been drawn up by "independent Treasury officials".

He shouldn't have said that. The civil service is supposed to stay neutral in matters electoral. Sunak had been warned.

Afterwards, shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves told broadcasters that Sunak "lied 12 times” about Labour’s tax plans but how can anybody know?

Only if she tells us the truth. But Reeves has steadfastly refused to say what her plans are. They're likely to be costly, though.

Whichever party wins the election faces a spending shortfall of at least £30billion. That's not a figure from the Conservative Party, whipped out to frighten the voters. It comes from the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

The IMF’s annual UK health check warned last month that the next government faces “difficult choices” unless it curbs spending.

It warned the Treasury needs to consider a range of “potentially unpopular revenue-raising measures” stop the UK's national debt rising even higher.

Its suggestions included widening the scope of VAT, road pricing, scrapping the state pension triple lock, hiking inheritance tax and capital gains tax, and possibly even charging people for using public services.

So far, Labour has only told us it will tax non-doms, end the VAT exemption on private school fees, and restore the pensions lifetime allowance.

These measures will raise a few billion at most. They might even cost us money, if wealthy non-doms up sticks and take their businesses and incomes with them.

That will still leave a massive £30billion black hole and Labour isn't going to plug it by slashing spending.

Reeves has sworn there will be no “return to austerity". Labour’s left-wing supporters wouldn’t stand for it anyway.

Another reputable body, The Institute of Fiscal Studies, has warned that whoever wins the election will have to cut spending or hike taxes, or both.

It pointed out Labour’s plan to borrow £23.7billion to fund the green energy transition would make plugging the deficit even harder than it already is.

Reeves has promised not to increase income tax or National Insurance but that still leaves a host of taxes she could hike.

Some fear Reeves could axe the 25 percent tax-free pension lump sum. That would be hugely unpopular, though.

It would be much easier to reverse Hunt's recent decision to hike the pensions annual allowance – the amount savers can contribute while claiming tax relief.

Inheritance tax must be high on Reeves' hit list. Her personally appointed advisers have called for IHT on pensions, which are currently exempt.

They would like to see capital gains tax hiked, too, bringing rates into line with income tax bands.

Both could be pitched as targeting the wealthy in the name of equality. Left-wing Labour voters would lap that up.

Council tax is a big worry. Today's bills are calculated based on 1991 values. Many in the Labour Party would love to see a re-rating, so that those with bigger homes pay more.

As yet, we don't know what Reeves will do. If she wants to convince voters that Sunak is making up the numbers, she'll need to supply a few of her own.

Until she does then Sunak – and the rest of us – will be free to draw our own conclusions.