Dan Neidle
@danneidle.bsky.social
Founder of Tax Policy Associates Ltd. Tax realist. @danneidle on Twitter
It’s a general problem with a lot of “Left” tax advocacy. Thinking that the problem is real, the motive is good, and therefore the solution is correct.
But that misses a step: what will the consequences be?
I've written about this: buff.ly/he6atH1
But that misses a step: what will the consequences be?
I've written about this: buff.ly/he6atH1
Why the Left struggles with tax policy
There’s a problem with a lot of Left-wing tax advocacy: it identifies a political challenge, and proposes a policy aimed at solving it. But the authors believe so strongly in the policy’s…
taxpolicy.org.uk
November 10, 2025 at 10:58 AM
It’s a general problem with a lot of “Left” tax advocacy. Thinking that the problem is real, the motive is good, and therefore the solution is correct.
But that misses a step: what will the consequences be?
I've written about this: buff.ly/he6atH1
But that misses a step: what will the consequences be?
I've written about this: buff.ly/he6atH1
of course correct!
The Chicago Convention just stops states taxing fuel carried by a plane as it lands. So you can't tax tankering...
The Chicago Convention just stops states taxing fuel carried by a plane as it lands. So you can't tax tankering...
November 10, 2025 at 10:52 AM
of course correct!
The Chicago Convention just stops states taxing fuel carried by a plane as it lands. So you can't tax tankering...
The Chicago Convention just stops states taxing fuel carried by a plane as it lands. So you can't tax tankering...
And our analysis, with an interactive calculator that lets you play with council tax design: buff.ly/BRr5v9s
Council tax rises would hit the not-so-rich
Most revenue from a ‘tax on expensive homes’ would come from Band G - ordinary upper-middle households, not the super-rich.
buff.ly
November 9, 2025 at 3:10 PM
And our analysis, with an interactive calculator that lets you play with council tax design: buff.ly/BRr5v9s
The PoliticsHome piece is: www.politicshome.com/news/article...
November 9, 2025 at 3:10 PM
The PoliticsHome piece is: www.politicshome.com/news/article...
There is absolutely a good argument for raising council tax at the top end.
But doing this without a revaluation may not be possible in practice. Unless we're relaxed about creating some deeply unfair results...
But doing this without a revaluation may not be possible in practice. Unless we're relaxed about creating some deeply unfair results...
November 9, 2025 at 3:10 PM
There is absolutely a good argument for raising council tax at the top end.
But doing this without a revaluation may not be possible in practice. Unless we're relaxed about creating some deeply unfair results...
But doing this without a revaluation may not be possible in practice. Unless we're relaxed about creating some deeply unfair results...
That's only a limited problem now; places like Walthamstow with few Band G/H properties simply raise council tax so that e.g. Band F pays more.
But if there's a special doubled rate on Band G and Band H then the existing disparities become very unfair.
But if there's a special doubled rate on Band G and Band H then the existing disparities become very unfair.
November 9, 2025 at 3:10 PM
That's only a limited problem now; places like Walthamstow with few Band G/H properties simply raise council tax so that e.g. Band F pays more.
But if there's a special doubled rate on Band G and Band H then the existing disparities become very unfair.
But if there's a special doubled rate on Band G and Band H then the existing disparities become very unfair.
That means there are way more Band G properties in areas that were wealthy in 1991, and way fewer in areas that are wealthy now, but weren't in 1991.
The result - people in similarly valuable houses would face a total postcode lottery.
The result - people in similarly valuable houses would face a total postcode lottery.
November 9, 2025 at 3:10 PM
That means there are way more Band G properties in areas that were wealthy in 1991, and way fewer in areas that are wealthy now, but weren't in 1991.
The result - people in similarly valuable houses would face a total postcode lottery.
The result - people in similarly valuable houses would face a total postcode lottery.
It's all down to the ridiculousness of council tax being based on 1991 valuations
November 9, 2025 at 3:10 PM
It's all down to the ridiculousness of council tax being based on 1991 valuations
So what's my solution?
I've the usual boring tax lawyer answer: this change requires international cooperation, and that will be long and difficult but is the only practicable way forward.
The video was funnier.
I've the usual boring tax lawyer answer: this change requires international cooperation, and that will be long and difficult but is the only practicable way forward.
The video was funnier.
November 8, 2025 at 9:34 AM
So what's my solution?
I've the usual boring tax lawyer answer: this change requires international cooperation, and that will be long and difficult but is the only practicable way forward.
The video was funnier.
I've the usual boring tax lawyer answer: this change requires international cooperation, and that will be long and difficult but is the only practicable way forward.
The video was funnier.
And the general point: always always think about incentives. Those we have now, and those we'd be creating.
November 8, 2025 at 9:34 AM
And the general point: always always think about incentives. Those we have now, and those we'd be creating.
I've been told this by lots of people very familiar with the aviation market (some have a vested interest; some don't)
It might be wrong. But it would be a very serious error to change UK fuel duty without thinking through the consequences carefully.
It might be wrong. But it would be a very serious error to change UK fuel duty without thinking through the consequences carefully.
November 8, 2025 at 9:34 AM
I've been told this by lots of people very familiar with the aviation market (some have a vested interest; some don't)
It might be wrong. But it would be a very serious error to change UK fuel duty without thinking through the consequences carefully.
It might be wrong. But it would be a very serious error to change UK fuel duty without thinking through the consequences carefully.
Second: an aircraft full of fuel needs more fuel to take off, land and fly. It's less efficient.
So if UK changes to fuel duty incentivise tankering, it's plausible that the result will be more, not less, CO2 emissions. Totally counter-productive.
So if UK changes to fuel duty incentivise tankering, it's plausible that the result will be more, not less, CO2 emissions. Totally counter-productive.
November 8, 2025 at 9:34 AM
Second: an aircraft full of fuel needs more fuel to take off, land and fly. It's less efficient.
So if UK changes to fuel duty incentivise tankering, it's plausible that the result will be more, not less, CO2 emissions. Totally counter-productive.
So if UK changes to fuel duty incentivise tankering, it's plausible that the result will be more, not less, CO2 emissions. Totally counter-productive.
That has two consequences.
First: we don't actually end up collecting much fuel duty from private jets. Irritating but not terribly important.
First: we don't actually end up collecting much fuel duty from private jets. Irritating but not terribly important.
November 8, 2025 at 9:34 AM
That has two consequences.
First: we don't actually end up collecting much fuel duty from private jets. Irritating but not terribly important.
First: we don't actually end up collecting much fuel duty from private jets. Irritating but not terribly important.
The catch is a particularly nasty one.
We are so near to the EU that, if the UK did unilaterally impose fuel duty on private jets, they'd just load up on fuel before coming to the UK ("tankering").
We are so near to the EU that, if the UK did unilaterally impose fuel duty on private jets, they'd just load up on fuel before coming to the UK ("tankering").
November 8, 2025 at 9:34 AM
The catch is a particularly nasty one.
We are so near to the EU that, if the UK did unilaterally impose fuel duty on private jets, they'd just load up on fuel before coming to the UK ("tankering").
We are so near to the EU that, if the UK did unilaterally impose fuel duty on private jets, they'd just load up on fuel before coming to the UK ("tankering").
Why should we care?
Thanks to the sunny uplands of Brexit, we're free to set fuel duty however we like.
But there's a catch.
Thanks to the sunny uplands of Brexit, we're free to set fuel duty however we like.
But there's a catch.
November 8, 2025 at 9:34 AM
Why should we care?
Thanks to the sunny uplands of Brexit, we're free to set fuel duty however we like.
But there's a catch.
Thanks to the sunny uplands of Brexit, we're free to set fuel duty however we like.
But there's a catch.
We inherited all this from EU law, and that's why in practice private jets don't pay fuel duty in the UK.
November 8, 2025 at 9:34 AM
We inherited all this from EU law, and that's why in practice private jets don't pay fuel duty in the UK.
Lots of people in the EU want to change this, but that requires unanimity, and it keeps getting blocked.
November 8, 2025 at 9:34 AM
Lots of people in the EU want to change this, but that requires unanimity, and it keeps getting blocked.
The problem is EU law
EU law exempts aircraft fuel from duties unless it's "private pleasure flying"
And in practice most private jet flights are either for business, or (loophole!) rich person pays a commercial rate to fly on a jet owned by their own company.
No duty
EU law exempts aircraft fuel from duties unless it's "private pleasure flying"
And in practice most private jet flights are either for business, or (loophole!) rich person pays a commercial rate to fly on a jet owned by their own company.
No duty
November 8, 2025 at 9:34 AM
The problem is EU law
EU law exempts aircraft fuel from duties unless it's "private pleasure flying"
And in practice most private jet flights are either for business, or (loophole!) rich person pays a commercial rate to fly on a jet owned by their own company.
No duty
EU law exempts aircraft fuel from duties unless it's "private pleasure flying"
And in practice most private jet flights are either for business, or (loophole!) rich person pays a commercial rate to fly on a jet owned by their own company.
No duty
In principle this is obvious: of course there should be duty on private jet fuel . Both as a revenue raiser and (more importantly) to deter an inefficient source of CO2 emissions ("properly price an externality").
But.
But.
November 8, 2025 at 9:34 AM
In principle this is obvious: of course there should be duty on private jet fuel . Both as a revenue raiser and (more importantly) to deter an inefficient source of CO2 emissions ("properly price an externality").
But.
But.
The Sheffield Tribune article is here: www.sheffieldtribune.co.uk/a-london-law...
November 7, 2025 at 9:40 AM
The Sheffield Tribune article is here: www.sheffieldtribune.co.uk/a-london-law...
Usual SRA procedures are - rightly - careful and slow. This is a case where protection of the public requires immediate action.
November 7, 2025 at 9:40 AM
Usual SRA procedures are - rightly - careful and slow. This is a case where protection of the public requires immediate action.
3. the SRA should impose immediate restrictions on Milne, suspending him from practising as a solicitor pending the outcome of an investigation.
November 7, 2025 at 9:40 AM
3. the SRA should impose immediate restrictions on Milne, suspending him from practising as a solicitor pending the outcome of an investigation.