When I launched my Parliamentary Fellowship, Taxation for Growth, earlier this year, I wanted to do more than run another academic exercise. The aim was to bring fresh, evidence-based thinking into Parliament on one of the most pressing challenges we face: how to design a tax system that is progressive, pro-growth and efficient in ensuring the money we raise stays in the economy.

To do this, I set three questions for entrants. The first two looked at the design of wealth taxes and international coordination on tax avoidance. The third was a bonus question: Which investments in public wealth yield the highest direct and indirect economic return? Though the competition is about tax, this question deliberately shifted the focus to the other side of the ledger – what we do with the proceeds raised. Far too often our political debate is reduced to penny-pinching arguments about rates and thresholds, with little attention paid to the impact of public investment on growth, productivity, wellbeing and, ultimately, tax we get back in return down the line.

One of the most compelling answers actually came from a local constituent, Matt Camps, who made a powerful case for prioritising investment in the NHS. His submission drew on leading academic research that quantifies the NHS not just as a cost centre, but as a generator of substantial economic returns.

The data he highlights are striking. Research shows that every £1 invested in community care generates £14.68 in Gross Value Added (GVA). Investment in primary care yields £14.14, and acute care £10.77. In a period where boosting long-term growth is a national priority, these multipliers suggest the NHS is one of the most effective investments available to government – a driver of both direct economic activity and productivity spillovers.

The indirect returns are equally significant. Healthier populations are more able to work. Studies show investment in health reduces A&E attendances and long-term sickness, leading to higher employment and productivity. With the UK’s economic inactivity rate hovering at 21 per cent between April and June 2025 (ONS), this link between health and participation is not abstract – it is central to our growth challenge.

Investment in the NHS also generates fiscal returns. The King’s Fund estimates that a £1-billion investment yields more tax revenue than the initial outlay, as higher employment and productivity feed back into the Treasury. In other words, properly designed health investment can become self-sustaining.

Taken together, these arguments highlight why the conversation on tax and spend must evolve. Taxation for Growth is not just about how we raise revenue, but about ensuring that every pound collected is used in ways that deliver the highest returns. Investments like those in the NHS prove that well-deployed public wealth can deliver some of the highest multipliers in our economy.

That is why my Fellowship continues to ask these questions. If we are serious about building a stronger, fairer economy, we must stop treating taxation and investment as separate silos – and instead see them as two sides of the same equation.