How tax rules our politics (and lives)
Far be it from me to argue about tax with a man who founded a think tank called Tax Policy Associates and who advises the Scottish Government (among others) on tax issues, but his first point hardly needs proving to anyone. Ever since we learnt the story of Robin Hood, we've known tax as a fifth element in our lives.
As for Einstein, well, having listened ahead to all five episodes of Untaxing, I am tempted to agree with the physicist. Neidle's series makes our tax systems seem arcane, opaque, fantastical, occasionally deranged, often frustrating and always baffling. Despite that – or perhaps because of it – it's a terrific series, filled with anecdote and insight, that will leave you with the feeling you should pay far more attention to tax beyond your payslip, the Budget and the adventures of Little John et al.
Monday's opener was all about a napkin – 'the napkin that changed the world' – and revealed both Neidle's ability to zero in on quirks of history that prove to be seismic and how ideology and politicking give tax a bad name. The napkin was on a restaurant table in Washington DC in 1974, and scribbling on it was a young economist named Arthur Laffer. Watching him doodle a graph, with ever-widening eyes, were White House officials Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. What the doodle 'proved' was that if you raise taxes too much, revenues will actually go down.
Though disputed, the 'Laffer Curve' is still popular today – it is regularly cited by, among others, Liz Truss, while in 2019 Donald Trump awarded Laffer the Presidential Medal of Freedom, referencing the famous napkin. The napkin is a Shroud of Turin for those who seek low taxation, but tax ideology works both ways.
Recently, the Scottish Government raised the top rate of income tax to 48 per cent, which some believe will scare off higher earners and lead to less revenue. And what did Neidle and his colleagues at the Scottish Government's Tax Advisory Group have to say about this? 'Nothing,' said Neidle. 'Because they didn't ask us. It was pure politics.' More tax theory drawn up on the back of napkins.
Yesterday delved into the murky story of the Beatles' inventive but ultimately flawed efforts to avoid income tax (surely Eleanor Rigby would have benefited from some of their revenues?), a tale that ultimately ended in Michael Jackson selling the rights to Lennon & McCartney's songs to pay his own tax bill.
Today's episode is on Jaffa Cakes, tomorrow's on a porn-star lawyer who played a part in the downfall of Rangers Football Club. Neidle cherrypicks the minutiae expertly. The overall impression is of the British tax system as a towering, teetering, rickety old building, with extension built upon extension, and all sorts of oddities lurking in the basement. Five 15-minute episodes isn't nearly enough – I hope Radio 4 have Neidle back soon.
Also managing to be riveting on an ostensibly dry economic subject was Invisible Hands (Radio 4), which is looking at the birth of the free market. That it's so compelling is no surprise, given that the man behind it is David Dimbleby, who shares Neidle's ability to extrapolate world-changing ideas from the smallest of moments. This first episode, for instance, found the origins of the free market in the downing of a Hurricane fighter plane in August 1940, the Egg Marketing Board and a copy of the Reader's Digest.
Jo Barratt's production had the swing and sway (and the background music) of a juicy true-crime podcast, with Dimbleby gamely showing he could mix it with the young pups of podcasting. Here, it's all about storytelling. 'It turns out it's a much stranger story than you can imagine,' began Dimbleby, as the music grew more insistent. It's shameless, but I was hooked.
And when that Reader's Digest came along, Dimbleby introduced it like this: 'A magazine that would change the course of Antony Fisher's life… and the history of this country – forever.' He even gave us the little details – in that edition, alongside the all-important article The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek, were pieces on 'strange animal friendships, the beard of Joseph Palmer and shepherds of the underground', a list of subjects that would fit quite pleasingly into Radio 4's schedules.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
12 minutes ago
- Medscape
What Does the New US Budget Law Mean for Physicians?
Physicians are still assessing the impact of the budget and policy package passed by Congressional Republicans and recently signed into law by President Donald Trump. The legislation makes the largest cuts to Medicaid in its history, eliminating about $1 trillion over 10 years and establishing a work requirement that could force many recipients off the program over bureaucratic hurdles. Nearly 12 million Americans are expected to lose health coverage over 10 years as a result, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Millions more will be affected by the law's ending of certain health insurance subsidies created under the Affordable Care Act. Here's what physicians should know: Medicare Pay Bump In the near term, physicians will see a 1-year 2026 temporary increase of 2.5% in a rate used in determining Medicare's payments to clinicians. Despite that bit of good news, the budget package will make it more challenging to practice medicine, Bobby Mukkamala, MD, president of the American Medical Association (AMA), told Medscape Medical News in an interview. Clinicians, hospitals, and medical groups are likely to have to provide more uncompensated care to the uninsured. 'When it comes to healthcare in this country and the training for healthcare in this country, I don't see anything to be happy about,' Mukkamala said. Medicaid patients made up about 17% of the average physician's caseload in 2016, according to the AMA's Physician Practice Benchmark Survey. But pediatricians, with the largest average Medicaid patient share of any specialty at nearly 35%, could see a bigger reimbursement hit, depending on whether they are on salary or not. Psychiatrists and emergency medicine physicians also have above average Medicaid patient shares (26% and 22%, respectively). Internists reported the lowest Medicaid patient share at just under 12%. New Med Student Loan Limits The new law also limits federal loans for professional programs including medical and dental school to $50,000 a year with a total cap of $200,000. The average medical school debt tops $234,000, according to an Education Data Initiative report, but tuition and living expenses for private schools can top $87,000 per year. The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) said in a statement that the budget package's elimination of the Grad PLUS loan program 'will affect many prospective medical and other health profession's students and worsen the nation's persistent doctor shortage.' AAMC leaders said they were 'dismayed' by 'massive cuts to Medicaid and changes to state health insurance marketplace exchanges that will lead to tens of millions of people losing much-needed healthcare coverage.' Anders Gilberg, senior vice president for government affairs for the Medical Group Management Association, said the newly cleared bill 'paints a grim future for America's physician practices by stripping healthcare coverage from millions of Americans.' People who lose healthcare coverage 'will still find care in our US healthcare system,' Gilberg said, but 'medical groups and hospitals will be left picking up the enormous tab.' 'With these historic Medicaid cuts, dedicated physicians and medical practices committed to providing care in our country's most underserved areas will face growing financial burdens as they are forced to offer more and more uncompensated care,' he said. A Boost for Direct Primary Care The budget package also for the first time allows patients to use their Health Savings Accounts to pay for monthly fees charged by direct primary care providers, which may include office visits but not major procedures, lab tests, or prescription drugs. Monthly fees of up to $150 ($300 per couple) will be allowed and will be tied to inflation going forward. The provision is seen as a win for the growing direct primary care movement. Uninsured Concerns It's not yet clear how many adults will eventually lose health coverage due to the implementation of the new law. The Congressional Budget Office had estimated that 11.8 million fewer people would have had health insurance in 2034 if an earlier Senate version of the bill were adopted. Belinda R. Avalos, MD, president of the American Society of Hematology said in a statement that nearly half of people living with sickle cell disease are covered under Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program. 'It is profoundly disappointing that the Senate and House have voted to adopt the devastating cuts to Medicaid outlined in this bill,' Avalos said. 'These cuts recklessly endanger the health of millions of Americans, including those living with complex, life-threatening blood disorders.' In a statement, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) said it also was 'disappointed that Congress has advanced legislation that could impact patients' access to Medicaid and limit providers' ability to care for vulnerable patients.' 'We encourage leaders in Washington to support measures that expand access to care and coverage for patients, rather than displacing the estimated 11.8 million Americans whose insurance could be at risk,' ACR said.
Washington Post
43 minutes ago
- Washington Post
The White House's plan to downsize the federal government, in charts
President Donald Trump and his advisers have called for dramatically shrinking the size and scope of the federal government, dispatching officials to agency after agency to block funding and slash staffing. The Supreme Court has revived the administration's efforts to lay off workers, allowing planned reductions in force to resume in a ruling last week. The State Department announced staff cuts a few days later. The administration aims to go beyond that. As part of Trump's 2026 budget request, the White House laid out in detail how many employees the executive branch hopes to cut. It envisions a government with 5 percent fewer employees compared to the final year of the Biden administration. Most agencies expect to have fewer employees in 2026 than in 2024 5% of 2024 total USAID -4,255 employees 54% Education -1,913 65% Agriculture -31,840 69% NASA -5,625 71% Labor -4,541 73% HUD -2,362 83% HHS -14,475 84% Treasury -16,617 88% EPA -1,798 91% Energy -1,461 95% Justice -6,226 97% State -1,034 99% Veterans Affairs -4,521 101% Interior +840 102% Transportation +1,016 103% Homeland Security +5,439 106% Commerce +2,350 That would cut more than 114,000 jobs, while adding several thousand for immigration enforcement and border security. The government would go from having about 2,142,000 employees in 2024 to about 2,028,000 in 2026. That figure reflects full-time employment, even if one job is done by two part-timers. Five agencies — responsible for helping homeless Americans, administering foreign aid, investigating chemical safety incidents, protecting consumers from unsafe products and more — would have no staff under Trump's plan, and 14 more agencies would lose at least a third of their employees. The Agriculture Department, where the White House is calling for the most cuts, would shed more than 31,000 employees — about 35 percent of its 91,000 employees as of last year. About 12,000 such employees work on wildland fire management; more than 10,500 of those positions aren't being eliminated, but instead moved to the Interior Department. Most major programs in Department of Agriculture face cuts Forest Service 0% Forest and Rangeland Research -1,641 employees 6% State, Private, and Tribal Forestry -580 40% Permanent Appropriations -726 51% Trust Funds -272 53% Forest Service Operations -1,514 70% National Forest System -4,638 87% Wildland Fire Management -1,603 Agricultural Marketing Service 80% Inspection and Grading of Farm Products -264 employees 83% Marketing Services -179 Executive Operations 75% Office of Ethics -202 employees 105% Working Capital Fund +137 Food and Nutrition Service 68% Nutrition Programs Administration -244 employees 71% Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program -158 Natural Resources Conservation Service 39% Conservation Operations -2,481 employees 92% Farm Security and Rural Investment Programs -525 Agricultural Research Service 79% -1,307 employees Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 85% -1,180 employees Farm Production and Conservation 64% -586 employees Farm Service Agency 79% -666 employees Food Safety and Inspection Service 98% -205 employees Foreign Agricultural Service 86% -79 employees National Agricultural Statistics Service 59% -344 employees Office of the Secretary 39% -578 employees Rural Development Administration 72% -1,249 employees Only programs that had at least 500 employees in 2024 are included. In some cases, job losses may be offset by gains in other programs if staff are moved from one office or agency to another. NASA, too, would shrink from 18,000 employees last year to about 12,300 in 2026, a cut of more than 30 percent. Billionaire tech entrepreneur Elon Musk, until recently a trusted adviser to Trump, advocated preserving much of NASA's resources — now it's unclear if his acrimonious departure from the White House will change the president's plan for the agency. The departments of Education, Labor, Housing and Urban Development, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, all longtime targets of some conservative policymakers, would also see thousands fewer employees. The State Department announced over 1,300 layoffs earlier this week, The Post reported — a similar number to the 1,465 cuts in Trump's budget, offset by about 400 new jobs. The departments of Commerce and Homeland Security would gain thousands of new jobs, including at the Patent and Trademark Office, Customs and Border Protection, and the Coast Guard. Estimated number of employees in each agency in 2026 Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security remain the agencies with most employees Veterans Affairs 456K est. employees in 2026 Homeland Security 218K Justice 111K Treasury 90K HHS 70K Interior 65K Agriculture 59K Transportation 56K Commerce 43K State 30K Energy 15K EPA 14K NASA 12K Labor 11K HUD 6.4K Education 2.2K USAID 222 Trump's budget does not include proposed staffing levels for the Defense Department; a separate document with Defense budget estimates will be published this month, the White House budget office has said. Jake Spring and Ruby Mellen contributed to this report.
CNN
43 minutes ago
- CNN
Roughly 6 in 10 Americans oppose Trump's megabill, CNN poll finds
Roughly 6 in 10 Americans say they oppose the GOP domestic policy bill that President Donald Trump recently signed into law, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS. In the wake of his most sweeping legislative achievement since returning to office, Trump's rating for handling the budget has slumped 11 points since March, with a rising majority also saying he's gone too far in cutting government programs. While there are signs that opinions have yet to fully settle – fewer than a third of the public reports following news about the bill very closely, and roughly half of Americans don't express strong feelings one way or the other – the initial strong opposition to the bill outpaces initial strong support. Americans say, 61% to 39%, that they oppose the spending bill overall. Most, 58%, now say Trump's gone too far in cutting federal government programs (up 7 points since February), and his rating for handling the federal budget now stands at just 37%. His rating for handling taxes, though still underwater, is modestly more positive: 44% approve of his handling of taxes, close to his first-term high on that issue. More expect the bill to hurt the economy than to help it, 51% to 29%, with the rest expecting it to make little difference. And more expect it to leave their family worse off than better off, 37% to 16%, with nearly half unsure or predicting they'll be largely unaffected. Trump's overall job approval rating remains at 42%, largely unchanged since spring, but just 37% say he has had the right priorities, down 6 points from March. The public response to the bill's proposals isn't entirely negative. By a 29-point margin, Americans say that the changes it makes to tax laws – such as permanent extension of the tax cuts passed in 2017, temporarily ending taxes on tips and expanded tax breaks for seniors and parents – are more of a reason to support it than to oppose it. They say the same of its increase to defense spending (by a 13-point margin) and its increased spending on border security, immigration enforcement and detention (by an 8-point margin). But by a 45-point margin, Americans call the amount that it will add to the deficit a reason for opposition. By a 25-point margin, they oppose its removal of incentives for the use of clean energy to encourage the use of oil and gas. By a smaller 8-point margin, they oppose the changes it makes to social safety net programs, such as increased work requirements for recipients of benefits including Medicaid and nutrition assistance and decreased federal spending on those benefits – changes that have been at the heart of much of the Democratic messaging against the bill. Trump's support for the bill is also seen, by an 18-point margin, as more of a reason for opposition than support. Views of the policy bill are sharply divided by party, but the intensity of Democratic opposition far outstrips the strength of Republican support. A near-unanimous 93% of Democrats and Democratic-leaners say they oppose the bill, with 71% opposing it strongly. By contrast, while 78% of Republicans and Republican-leaners support the bill overall, only about one-quarter express strong support. And although there's broad GOP-aligned backing for the bill's provisions on taxes (86% see this as a reason to support the bill) and immigration enforcement spending (83%), roughly 4 in 10 don't expect it to help the economy, and only about one-third expect to see a personal benefit. Four in 10 also see the amount it adds to the federal deficit as a reason to oppose the bill. 'There's no way we can continue as a country with this kind of oppressive debt,' one Virginia Republican polled wrote in answer to the survey. She approved of Trump's handling of the presidency as a whole but gave him negative marks on the federal budget, and called the federal debt the country's most urgent issue. As Trump's second-term job rating has stabilized in the low 40s on both the presidency and his handling of the economy overall, a 63% majority also says he hasn't paid enough attention to the country's most important issues. While 75% of Republicans say he has the right priorities, that's down markedly since March and his lowest reading amongst his own party since his return to office in January. And a majority (56%) say Trump's approach to the presidency has been unnecessarily risky rather than a necessary shakeup in Washington. Some 56% also say that's he's gone too far in using the power of the presidency and executive branch, and 51% say that he's gone too far in pressing colleges and universities to change their policies. When it comes to trying to reduce the price of everyday goods, by contrast, 58% say Trump has yet to go far enough. Asked in an open-ended question to name the issue they consider most important, 31% of Americans mention something related to the economy, inflation or cost of living – a plurality, although down from 44% in January. These economy-focused Americans are even more sharp in their criticism of Trump's handling of high prices: 65% say he hasn't gone far enough to reduce the price of everyday goods. 'We were promised a lot of things during the campaign and there haven't been a lot of improvements,' wrote another woman polled, an independent from Texas who called the state of the economy the most pressing national concern. Immigration-related topics rank second to the economy as a top issue. While that's similar overall to January, the partisan dynamics of the issue have shifted. At the start of the year, Republicans and Republican-leaning independents were 26 points likelier than those aligned with the Democratic Party to mention immigration. Now, that gap has narrowed to 10 points among rising Democratic concern about Trump's deportation program, even as many Republicans continue to praise the effort. The poll also finds increased Democratic attention to government spending, concerns about separation of powers and the rule of law, and Trump himself. One issue that didn't rise to prominence in the poll: The ongoing uproar about the information the federal government has released on the Jeffrey Epstein case. Just one respondent mentioned that as the most important problem. The CNN poll was conducted by SSRS from July 10-13 among a random national sample of 1,057 US adults drawn from a probability-based panel. Surveys were either conducted online or by telephone with a live interviewer. Results among all adults have a margin of sampling error of ±3.5 percentage points.
