logo
The Beatles and Kinks would be howling about tax in Labour's Britain

The Beatles and Kinks would be howling about tax in Labour's Britain

Telegraph2 days ago

'If you get too cold, I'll tax the heat / If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet / Cause I'm the taxman / Yeah, I'm the taxman.'
Those lyrics by George Harrison are from Taxman, the first song on the Beatles' Revolver album, released in 1966. That same year, the Kinks released Sunny Afternoon, with Ray Davies' blunt first line: 'The taxman's taken all my dough.'
Artists and songwriters are often ahead of the curve – quite literally in this case. For it wasn't until 1974 that US economist Arthur Laffer drew a line on a napkin capturing what Harrison and Davies were saying: as tax rates rise beyond a certain point, entrepreneurs and wealth creators get cheesed off. They then do less – or move overseas – and the broader economy suffers.
What become known as the Laffer curve, sketched at a smart Washington restaurant during a dinner with Republican Party bigwigs, had a profound impact on policymaking in America and elsewhere. Its core idea – that there's an optimal tax rate that maximises revenue, beyond which higher rates lower total revenues by stifling economic activity – was adopted by Ronald Reagan, a showbiz-star-turned-policymaker, as he entered the White House in 1981.
Laffer's insight fed into 'supply-side economics' – the school of thought that finally countered post-war 'big state' ideology. It's no good just borrowing and spending more government money in a bid to boost growth if the tax burden crushes genuine commerce.
Reagan's Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 sparked much howling from vested interests grown fat on state largesse. But it cut income tax significantly – and the US averaged 3.5pc annual growth for the rest of the decade, rescuing the world's biggest economy from 1970s stagnation.
Approaching the first anniversary of this Labour Government, UK tax revenues are heading for 38pc of GDP, the highest tax burden since the early 1960s – above levels which riled the Beatles and the Kinks.
Yet the public finances are extremely precarious. The Government borrowed £148bn during the fiscal year that ended in April, £61bn more than the Office for Budget Responsibility estimated when that same fiscal year started.
It's important to remember the vast scale of that 12-month forecasting error during current rows over whether Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, has a single-digit-billion buffer in the national accounts in four years' time – the 'fiscal headroom' that dominates political discussion.
Arguing obsessively about contingencies of less than 1pc of public spending which may or may not exist in 2029 is pure displacement activity. Our political and media class meanwhile all but ignores today's stark realities – an annual debt interest bill that's twice yearly defence spending and gilt yields consistently way above those seen during Liz Truss's mini-Budget crisis of October 2022.
Yes, it's important to rein-in our runaway benefits bill. Even before the Government's latest cave-in, spending on sickness and disability benefits was set to rise sharply by the end of this decade, from under £50bn to well over £70bn a year, albeit by a few billion less after Labour announced its welfare reforms. Now that Sir Keir Starmer has folded, even that minor slowdown in the rate of increase of benefit spending won't happen.
The only way to fix the public finances is to get growth going, so tax revenues rise and our vast 100pc-of-GDP-plus debt burden, and near-crisis-level debt service costs, fall as a share of national income. But Labour's tax rises since last July have crushed economic activity, curtailing tax revenues and weakening the public finances further – a sure sign we're beyond the peak of the Laffer curve, with yet higher tax rates set to prove even more counter-productive.
The disastrous rise in employers' National Insurance contributions (NICs) has hammered hiring, undermining NIC revenues overall. Employment has fallen every month since the policy was unveiled in last October's budget, by an astonishing 109,000 in May alone, the month after this tax on jobs was introduced.
During that same autumn Budget, Reeves raised capital gains tax from 10pc to 18pc for basic-rate taxpayers and 20pc to 24pc for those paying the higher rate. The Office for Budget Responsibility has since sharply downgraded capital gains tax (CGT) revenue forecasts, wiping £23bn off the projected tax take by 2030.
Labour indulged its ideological fantasies by loading more taxes on non-dom international financiers based in the UK. Now multiple billionaires have fled and foreign direct investment projects have fallen to a two-decade low – imagine the jobs and tax revenues we've lost.
Building on Tory mistakes, Labour increased taxes even more on North Sea drilling, killing off countless energy extraction projects, again destroying valuable revenue streams. Then there's the spiteful imposition of VAT on school fees which has seen four times more pupils withdrawn by cash-strapped households than ministers predicted and countless school closures – another case of more taxation destroying ambition and enterprise, hitting revenues overall.
Back in the early 1980s, inspired by Laffer and Reagan, Margaret Thatcher's Tories lowered tax rates, setting Britain on a path to recovery. David Cameron and Theresa May's governments gradually cut corporation tax (CT) from 28pc in 2010 to 19pc by 2017, with CT revenues hitting 2.7pc of GDP by 2019, up from 2.1pc a decade earlier when the tax rate was much higher.
Taxation is complicated – the historical and contemporary examples above are subject to other factors, too. But evidence of many decades shows that countries where the state is relatively small grow faster and are more prosperous, with those consistently spending beyond their means collapsing into crisis.
The Beatles and the Kinks didn't leave the UK for tax purposes, unlike the Rolling Stones. But their songs captured the national mood, speaking for the silent majority, a mood that prevails today. Taxation is far too high – and raising tax rates even more will only compound Britain's fiscal and commercial weakness.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Lululemon sues Costco accusing it of selling brand knockoffs
Lululemon sues Costco accusing it of selling brand knockoffs

The Independent

time38 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Lululemon sues Costco accusing it of selling brand knockoffs

Lululemon has sued Costco, claiming the wholesaler sold knockoffs of the athleisure company's popular hoodies and pants. Knockoffs or dupes, as they have become more commonly known, have been increasingly popular with social media influencers making try-on videos of cheaper versions of their favorite apparel brands. Lululemon claimed in its lawsuit filed Friday that some companies have created 'knockoffs' or 'dupes' of its products. 'There is even a hashtag 'LululemonDupes' on social media platforms such as TikTok that social media influencers use when promoting these copycat products,' the company said. Lululemon claimed these dupes, including the ones Costco is selling, infringe on the company's intellectual property rights and damage its 'hard-earned' reputation. The company specifically names its Scuba hoodies and sweatshirts, Define jackets and ABC pants in the lawsuit. The Scuba hoodie retails for around $118, while the Define jacket and ABC pants cost about $128 each. Lululemon listed the dupes that Costco sold, including the Spyder Women's Yoga Jacket, which, according to the Costco website, retails for about $22. When The Independent looked up other items Lululemon listed, the Hi-Tec Men's Scuba Full Zip and the Kirkland 5 Pocket Performance Pant, on Costco's website, it read, 'Page Not Found!' Lululemon said retailers such as Costco want to sell the dupes 'to confuse consumers at the point-of-sale and/or observers post-sale into believing that the 'dupes' are Plaintiffs' authentic products when they are not.' In a statement shared with multiple outlets, Lululemon said: 'As an innovation-led company that invests significantly in the research, development and design of our products, we take the responsibility of protecting and enforcing our intellectual property rights very seriously and pursue the appropriate legal action when necessary.'

Iran-linked hackers threaten to release Trump aides' emails
Iran-linked hackers threaten to release Trump aides' emails

Reuters

time42 minutes ago

  • Reuters

Iran-linked hackers threaten to release Trump aides' emails

WASHINGTON, June 30 (Reuters) - Iran-linked hackers have threatened to disclose more emails stolen from U.S. President Donald Trump's circle, after distributing a prior batch to the media ahead of the 2024 U.S. election. In online chats with Reuters on Sunday and Monday, the hackers, who go by the pseudonym Robert, said they had roughly 100 gigabytes of emails from the accounts of White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, Trump lawyer Lindsey Halligan, Trump adviser Roger Stone and porn star-turned-Trump antagonist Stormy Daniels. Robert raised the possibility of selling the material but otherwise did not provide details of their plans. The hackers did not describe the content of the emails. Halligan, Stone, a representative for Daniels and the U.S. cyberdefense agency CISA did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The White House and the FBI responded with a statement from FBI Director Kash Patel, who said: "Anyone associated with any kind of breach of national security will be fully investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law." Iran's mission to the United Nations did not immediately return a message seeking comment. Tehran has in the past denied committing cyberespionage. Robert materialized in the final months of the 2024 presidential campaign, when they claimed to have breached the email accounts of several Trump allies, including Wiles. The hackers then distributed emails to journalists. Reuters previously authenticated some of the leaked material, including an email that appeared to document a financial arrangement between Trump and lawyers representing former presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. - now Trump's health secretary. Other material included Trump campaign communication about Republican office-seekers and discussion of settlement negotiations with Daniels. Although the leaked documents did garner some coverage last year, they did not fundamentally alter the presidential race, which Trump won. The U.S. Justice Department in a September 2024 indictment alleged that Iran's Revolutionary Guards ran the Robert hacking operation. In conversations with Reuters, the hackers declined to address the allegation. After Trump's election, Robert told Reuters that no more leaks were planned. As recently as May, the hackers told Reuters, "I am retired, man." But the group resumed communication after this month's 12-day air war between Israel and Iran, which was capped by U.S. bombing of Iran's nuclear sites. In messages this week, Robert said they were organizing a sale of stolen emails and wanted Reuters to "broadcast this matter." American Enterprise Institute scholar Frederick Kagan, who has written about Iranian cyberespionage, said Tehran suffered serious damage in the conflict and its spies were likely trying to retaliate in ways that did not draw more U.S. or Israeli action. "A default explanation is that everyone's been ordered to use all the asymmetric stuff that they can that's not likely to trigger a resumption of major Israeli/U.S. military activity," he said. "Leaking a bunch more emails is not likely to do that." Despite worries that Tehran could unleash digital havoc, Iran's hackers took a low profile during the conflict. U.S. cyber officials warned on Monday that American companies and critical infrastructure operators might still be in Tehran's crosshairs.

Trump and his ‘One Big, Beautiful Bill' just put the Senate in play for Democrats
Trump and his ‘One Big, Beautiful Bill' just put the Senate in play for Democrats

The Independent

time42 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Trump and his ‘One Big, Beautiful Bill' just put the Senate in play for Democrats

On Sunday, Sen. Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican, announced that he would not seek re-election. This came after numerous threats from President Donald Trump because of Tillis' opposition to the so-called 'One Big, Beautiful' bill. Trump had even floated the idea of endorsing a primary challenger against Tillis. But when The Independent caught up with Tillis, he seemed sanguine about the whole affair. 'I respect President Trump, I support the majority of his agenda, but I don't bow to anybody when the people of North Carolina are at risk and this bill puts them at risk,' he told The Independent. Trump's decision to bash a senator from a state he won and Republicans need to keep could be seen as reckless. But it also jeopardized Republicans' chances of holding onto a Senate seat Tillis consistently won by narrow margins. Tillis simply recognized a political truth: it's nearly impossible to take away an entitlement once it is embedded in federal law and people have benefited from it. Voters tend to punish the party they see as trying to take away a benefit, particularly something as intensely personal as health care. Trump should have learned this in 2017 after he failed to pass a repeal of the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, when the late Arizona Sen. John McCain delivered his dramatic thumbs down. But Trump's bulldozing style and demand for absolute fealty from Republicans means he might be jeopardizing the future of the Republican majority in the Senate. Democrats already had Tillis in their crosshairs after he had voted to confirm Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and he shepherded Kash Patel's confirmation for FBI director. With an open seat, they have an even greater opportunity. A few months ago, Inside Washington listed North Carolina as the Senate seat most likely to flip. That prospect is much more likely with Tillis' departure. But Tillis is not the only swing-state Republican who faces a bind because of the bill. Inside Washington listed Susan Collins' seat in Maine as the No. 3 Senate seat most likely to flip. Collins faces a major challenge considering the bill caps the taxes on healthcare providers that states use to raise matching funds for Medicaid. As a result, Collins has put forward an amendment to increase the amount of money to shore up rural hospitals from $25 billion to $50 billion. That will certainly anger fiscal conservatives, to say nothing of Trump, despite the fact that many of his most die-hard supporters live in areas that depend on rural hospitals. Collins seems poised to run for re-election, especially after she defied gravity and beat back a Democratic challenger in 2020. But she faces a bind: if she votes yes on the bill, she will have hurt her most vulnerable voters after wringing her hands for weeks. If she opposes it, she will have crossed Trump. At age 72, choosing not to run next year is always a viable option. Republicans have 53 seats at the moment. So two seats flipping will not lose them the majority. But they also face the prospect of a bloody primary between incumbent Sen. John Cornyn and Attorney General Ken Paxton in Texas, which could create an opening for a Democrat to win in the Lone Star State. And just like how the passage of Obamacare and its ensuing aftermath led to Republicans winning Ted Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts, as well as Democratic-held seats in Arkansas, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, the vote on this piece of legislation could easily put Republicans on the defensive in states previously considered safe like Iowa, Kansas and Nebraska. A perfect example comes from recent Democratic history. When The Independent spoke with Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, the 2024 Democratic nominee for vice president, last month, he compared it to the election that sent him to Washington. 'I believe in most part, in 2006 that one of the reasons I got elected to Congress in a tough district was over Social Security,' Walz told The Independent. Just the year before, George W. Bush had floated an idea to gradually replace Social Security with private retirements accounts. The idea backfired and Democrats ran aggressively on it in 2006, which led to Walz winning a historically red seat in Congress before he ran for governor in 2018. In the same token, the bill is already widely unpopular, much to the chagrin of Republican lawmakers, and whether it makes its way to Trump's desk or it fails, they will be bombarded with ads about how they cut Medicaid. For now, senators from both parties just have to keep on voting in the marathon series of amendments in the vote-a-rama. But the moment they walk out of the building, they will feel the brutal political climate as much as they do the muggy DC summer.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store