Rachel Reeves finally finds a tax hike the public wants - but it could blow up in her face

Chancellor Rachel Reeves may now have found one, and it could raise a few billion in her autumn Budget. It's that unlikely thing, a tax hike that's actually popular with voters.

There's a key reason voters are in favour of course. It's because they won't pay, unlike the other taxes Labour is lining up on November 26. People are relaxed about levies that don't hit them, funnily enough.

And there's another reason it's popular. It will be paid by a sector that, by and large, the public hates. Many would see higher taxes as punishment for past misdemeanours. So this one really could be that rarity: a win-win for Rachel Reeves.

Also, it could raise as much as £8billion. That will go a long way to plugging her Budget black hole, now estimated at £30billion.

Best of all, the tax would be squarely targeted at the big, bad UK banks. And serve them right, many will say.

Taxpayers still haven't forgiven bonus-grabbing bankers for the 2008 financial crisis, when they had to stump up tens of billions to save them from collapse.

The meltdown left lasting scars. The UK economy has struggled to grow ever since, while real wages have stagnated.

So when people hear Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds and NatWest are set to make profits of more than £50billion this year, they understandably see red.

Today, banks pay a 3% surcharge on top of the 25% corporation tax all big firms pay. The Trades Union Congress wants Reeves to lift that to 8%, raising roughly £2billion a year.

The left-wing Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) has gone further, suggesting a new windfall tax that would raise up to £8billion. Few would complain if Reeves went down that route. But she should think very carefully.

Bashing the banks is good box office, but may not be good for business.

Reeves isn't only being urged to hit the banks. She's also being pushed to target the gambling industry, another sector Labour doesn't like.

Fair enough, but this is a high-stakes move. Entain, which owns Ladbrokes and Coral, warns higher levies would force it to close shops and shift investment overseas. It could also drive British punters towards unregulated black-market sites that generate no tax at all.

In a similar vein, Reeves is ignoring pleas from retailers to restore tax-free shopping for foreign visitors who once flocked to London to splurge on luxury goods. Scrapping that perk has cost the UK billions as tourists head elsewhere. Her non-dom crackdown may also disappoint, as wealthy residents flee abroad.

Labour's constant fits of fiscal morality risk doing more harm than good.

I'm no friend of the banks (disclaimer: I do hold some shares in Lloyds Banking Group) but hammering them again may backfire. They'll simply pass the cost on to customers, by cutting savings rates, hiking loan costs and lending less to small firms. That could mean slower growth, fewer jobs and lower tax receipts.

The banks already pay £40billion in tax a year, UK Finance says. Maybe we should see their rising profits as a rare success story, given that we all share in it.

Reeves may yet be tempted to press ahead. Politically, it's safer than raiding our pensions or breaking a manifesto pledge and hiking income tax. But we've already seen her tax raids on business backfire. Last year's hike to employer's national insurance sank firms and jobs, while windfall taxes have gutted North Sea oil and gas investment.

If Labour does tax the banks, it won't stop there. Soon the TUC and a heap of left-wing think tanks will be demanding another raft of taxes, because that's what they do.

Reeves needs to tread carefully. Britain doesn't need a crusade against profit. Instead, we need more of it, taxed fairly. Ordinary taxpayers may applaud a bank raid today, but if the economy stops growing as a result, they will ultimately pay.