‘Independent expert’ and tax lawyer Dan Neidle is raising the alarm over Gordon Brown’s call for a slew of gambling tax hikes. Neidle published a blog this morning in which he warned that whacking enormous taxes on the industry inevitably hits the gambler, not the gambling companies, and that the Institute for Public Policy Research’s (IPPR) proposal is flawed. If even Neidle is saying it…
“We need to be careful about trying to raise additional revenue from “sin” taxes. The revenue may be less than we expect, and what revenue we do receive may (in economic terms) come from customers rather than the businesses making the sale.
Personally I see compelling arguments for reducing the harms caused by gambling; but I’m unconvinced tax is a good tool for doing that. Regulation may be a better approach.
A tax increase may still be worth doing as a revenue-raiser. But any argument for an increase needs a more robust revenue estimate than the IPPR’s use of a static calculation and illustrative tables. And it needs to acknowledge who is actually paying the price.”
Rachel Reeves is nonetheless laying the groundwork to introduce such a sin tax at the budget anyway. Maybe Dan will be putting in a few calls to dissuade her…
Tax lawyer and often-cited “independent expert” Dan Neidle was widely printed following the budget with his claims that Reeves’ disastrous Farm Tax would affect below 500 farms per year. Neidle loudly supported the government before backtracking a month later and admitting farmers would be unfairly hit…
Now Guido can reveal Neidle has been privately in touch with the government. Along with the tax’s architect Arun Advani, Neidle provided early cover for Reeves and was quoted in BBC Verify’s government-sympathetic coverage (which failed to mention he is a senior Labour activist). He boldly claimed as few as 100 farms a year may be affected by the tax. A Freedom of Information request fired by Guido sought to work out whether Neidle had been in private discussions with James Murray – the Treasury minister responsible for tax. He has…
The Treasury blocked the release of the contents on the grounds that it would “constitute a breach of confidence actionable by that or any other person. This is an absolute exemption which does not require us to consider the public interest balance in disclosure.” It does however admit that “HM Treasury does hold correspondence between Dan Neidle and the Private Office of the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury.” What does the Treasury have to hide?
Starmer used BBC Verify last night to support the government’s claim that only 500 estates annually will be affected by Labour’s farm tax:
“All of you can check out what that means in terms of impact, I think the BBC has already done it…It means the vast majority of farms are unaffected by this, and I think it’s just important we keep making that clear.”
In its video yesterday BBC Verify said that for 70,000 farms to be hit, as the CLA claims, “is almost certainly an overestimate” and the “true share of farms affected going forward is likely to be much closer to the Treasury estimates.” Making the same error as the Treasury – using old figures and only accounting for one half of the capped threshold…
Guido noticed that Verify has also been quietly making changes to its main farm tax “fact-check.” It gets worse than confusing hectares for acres…
After Guido pointed out that Verify refers to senior Labour activist Dan Neidle an “independent tax expert” the article has been quietly changed to call him “founder of the independent Tax Policy Associates.” More egregiously Verify has completely cut Neidle’s outlandish claim that “the number of actual farms affected is likely to be below 500 per year” – which just links to one of his tweets. No notification of the update – and still no reference to Neidle’s partisan activism…
The BBC is busy promoting its ‘fact-checking’ article on Reeves’ new farm tax. The Verify team consulted with “independent tax expert” Dan Neidle who pooh-poohs claims from farmer groups that the tax will be highly damaging to a high number of family farms. The article finishes that section by saying Environment Secretary Steve Reed “confirmed the ‘vast majority’ of farmers will not be affected by changes.” He would say that, wouldn’t he…
What the top fact-checker sleuths over at Verify have failed to mention is that their “independent expert” is a senior and longtime Labour activist. Dan Neidle wrote in his successful pitch for election to Labour’s National Constitutional Committee in 2022:
“I’ve been a member of the Labour Party for 35 years and have been a ward secretary, ward chair and CLP Secretary. More recently, I’ve been the agent for two MPs and dozens of local councillors, and helped turn seats that were once marginal into Labour strongholds. I’ve practised law for 22 years and have advised candidates, MPs and campaign groups on electoral law, successfully fighting off attempts by other parties to use the legal system against us. I know the Labour Party rulebook.”
The NCC is “a senior organ of the UK Labour Party concerned with discipline.” Neidle was election agent for both Stella Creasy and Emily Thornberry, for whom he deployed such savvy electoral tricks as sending letters from fake neighbours urging a vote for Labour. You’d think with a combined salary of £3.2 million the Verify team may have noticed that one…
Guido’s not saying the BBC shouldn’t consult people like Neidle, just that the readers might like to know who they actually are. It always conducts its due diligence with right-wingers – funny that…
Rumours are swirling of Chancellor Reeves eyeing up a raid on pension tax reliefs, aiming to tighten her grip on hardworking Britons’ wallets. Now the Institute for Fiscal Studies has called for Reeves to reduce the amount that pensioners can withdraw from their pension pots tax-free. As it stands, savers can take out 25% of their pension tax-free up to £268,275, though the tax-happy think tank says this should be reduced to £100,000. Hitting 1 in 5 hard-working retirees’ wallets…
Tax lawyer and senior Labour activist Dan Neidle slammed the idea, pointing out the tax-free lump sum has been a cornerstone of the “deal” that workers have been promised when putting their hard-earned cash into their pensions. It would be yet another policy proving high-tax Labour view the elderly vote as less important. Reeves would be wise to ignore the idea, branded “unethical” by Cut My Tax. Changing the rules half-way through the game isn’t a good look for a party that claims to be one of “integrity”…
Labour have already u-turned on their promise to not raise taxes on “working people”. Reeves is saying she needs to fill the “surprise” £22 billion black hole by whacking up tax. Though if they are to commit to their promise of not raising income tax, VAT or NI, it’s simply a question of which sectors of life Labour will target. Tax lawyer Dan Neidle has done some research into which taxes they could raise:
Pension Reforms:
Inheritance and Wealth Taxes:
Capital Gains and Investment Taxes
Property and Real Estate Taxes
Consumption Taxes
A reminder that Neidle is not just a tax lawyer, but a senior Labour activist, who currently sits on the Party’s senior disciplinary body. He may be very well informed…
Speaking to Sky News off the back of Rachel Reeves’ Air Passenger Duty hike, Ryanair chief executive Michael O’Leary said:
“Labour is dependent on those Red Wall seats, and yet every move she makes poisons economic growth and damages the UK’s recovery… it’s the Chancellor who stumbles from policy misstep to policy misstep… I think her policy decisions are incredibly stupid.”