Connect with us

The Empire Strikes Back (Against Crypto)

The Empire Strikes Back (Against Crypto)
Tyler Durden
Tue, 12/15/2020 – 19:25

Authored by Omid Malekan,

Some years ago, when I first began telling people about crypto, a friend pushed back and said that the government would never allow Bitco

Published

on

The Empire Strikes Back (Against Crypto) Tyler Durden Tue, 12/15/2020 - 19:25

Authored by Omid Malekan,

Some years ago, when I first began telling people about crypto, a friend pushed back and said that the government would never allow Bitcoin to succeed.

“Money is power” he said, “and no self-respecting government is going to give that power up.”

I told him that I agreed, but that Bitcoin was still too small for governments to take seriously. By the time it became big enough to register as a threat, it would be too late.

Then came the 2017 bubble, and a ten-fold jump in value in a matter of months. But that rally happened too fast for anyone to react, and collapsed just as quickly, alleviating any concern that cryptocurrencies might someday contend for significance in broader society. There was a regulatory crackdown around initial coin offerings, but it had more to do with securities violations than the threat of a new kind of money.

The current rally feels different. Both blockchain and crypto have had almost three years to prove their utility and seep into the cultural zeitgeist, and digitally native solutions that are not controlled by any corporation or government seem more appealing in a continuously fracturing post-Trump and post-Brexit environment. The pandemic is bound to change everything, so why not money? The current rally is also driven by institutions, so it has staying power. Paul Tudor Jones and MassMutual are more likely to stay with Bitcoin for the long haul than that YouTuber who used to shill XRP.

The slowly unfolding governmental crackdown on this domain feels different, too. Everything from the actions against Bitmex to the latest French KYC requirements to the rumors about onerous new guidelines coming from the US Treasury smacks of anti-crypto bias. Western governments that supposedly value private innovation and civil liberties are increasingly acting like their Chinese counterparts, inventing crimes out of thin air just to have an excuse to punish someone.

For example, the same US Justice Department that has always avoided criminal prosecution of Wall Street execs for potential involvement with money laundering actually arrested the chief technology officer of a foreign crypto exchange. More Bitmex executives were criminally prosecuted for what may have happened with crypto than Goldman execs for their proven involvement with 1MDB. The takeaway? Look the other way while minor crypto money laundering takes place and the Feds come knocking. Participate actively in one of the largest theft, bribery and money laundering schemes in history and you get a slap on the wrist.

To be fair, cryptocurrencies do exist in certain legal gray zones, and some closing of the regulatory gap was always inevitable, and healthy. Regulations can introduce standards and help build trust around a financial system. They also pave the way for institutional adoption. Unlike some of the more radical elements of the crypto community, the money managers and corporations who have the firepower to really drive prices prefer their markets regulated. It also goes without saying that fraud, money laundering and terrorism financing are serious crimes that need to be prosecuted whenever and however they happen.

But what is most disturbing about the current crackdown are the ways in which it would make the crypto economy even more regulated than traditional financial services. We can attribute some of the more ridiculous proposals to ignorance, but tellingly, whatever regulators and lawmakers don’t understand about this world always leads to more onerous requirements, not less. Put together, the rules coming out of places like the US and Western Europe turn the crypto-economy into a retired Stasi agent’s dream come true, one where every financial transaction is traced and monitored, and every participating is presumed to be doing something nefarious.

To wit: forcing crypto exchanges to only allow withdrawals to KYC’ed wallets (as some have proposed) is sort of like forcing ATM machines to only allow cash withdrawals after clients disclose how they plan on spending each $20 bill. Regulating stablecoins like securities is akin to forcing consumers to report every debit card swipe to the IRS. If the requirements stated in the pending STABLE ACT were applied to all payment companies, not just blockchain-based ones, then PayPal and Square would be forced to shut down tomorrow. There are many so-called “alternative” assets where tax reporting is left up to the investor, including the ten trillion dollar real-estate market or the multi-trillion dollar private securities market. But the IRS doesn’t ask you to disclose whether you own any of those assets at the top of the form 1040 the way it now does for crypto assets.

The officials pushing these draconian measures cite the usual concerns about terrorists and drug dealers, but seldom offer credible data. If you didn’t know any better, and only listened to their grandstanding, then you’d assume that ISIS accounts for a substantial portion of Bitcoin mining and El Chapo is a top contributor to the Sushiswap USDT/DAI liquidity pool. So let it be said once and for all that the vast majority of crypto users, well over 99%, are not doing anything illegal. You know this to be true because you know who these people are. They are your friends, schoolmates and family members. They are Naval Ravikant, Ricardo Salinas Pliego and Spencer Dinwidddy.

Yes, the pseudonymity of crypto makes it somewhat appealing to certain criminals. But no, the underworld is not about to switch to a kind of money where every single transaction is recorded on a public ledger. Yes, Silk Road used Bitcoin, but no, the world’s meth addicts aren’t loading up on Ledger Nanos. I’ll go out on a limb and state that more drug deals get committed using cash in a single week than has ever been committed with crypto (the annual drug trade, measured in dollars, is bigger than the total market cap of all 7000 cryptocoins, combined). Crypto can also help solve crimes, because unlike duffel bags full of $100 bills, coins have a memory.

Financial fraud is a fact of life, regardless of the money used or payment method in question. There is close to $30b worth of credit card fraud committed every year, and California just paid out $2bn in fraudulent unemployment claims. You know what wouldn’t make sense? Using these stats to argue that most people who use a credit card or apply for government benefits are doing something wrong.

The spurious “crypto is for criminals’’ narrative predates Bitcoin. It was also used by government authorities to try to prevent public access to strong cryptography in the early days of digital communication. There was even a time when the US government tried to get domestic hardware manufacturers to install a NSA-designed encryption chip with a built-in back door for government snooping. That proposal, which was eventually abandoned, would have done little to stop the real crooks. They would have just adopted stronger encryption. But it would have made all telecommunication less secure and more likely to be compromised by hackers or North Korea. It would have also killed the American tech sector.

Trying to keep strong security tools out of the hands of the general public because criminals might also use them is like barring homeowners from installing door locks because doing so might make it a little harder for the cops to raid a drug den. The drug dealers would install the locks anyway, while the rest of us would be less safe. Remember the crippling WannaCry ransomware attack that was sensationalized because the hackers asked to be paid in cryptocurrency? It was built using a Windows exploit developed by the NSA. Had the Feds reported the vulnerability to Microsoft as soon as they discovered it then the attack may have never happened. But the government decided that keeping the entire digital domain less secure to preserve their own back door was more important, with predictable results.

The risk of criminal use is not the primary motivator behind the current crackdown on cryptocurrency. The real reason the Empire is Striking Back is because my friend was right. The most important soft-power on earth is the power to control money, with a close second being control of the banking system. The governmental monopoly on both is now being threatened. Not by a corporation that can be co-opted or by a foreign government that can be coerced, but by an idea.

An idea that money should be a tool of the people, not a weapon of the state. An idea that saving in the currency of your choice and earning a positive rate of interest is a universal right. An idea that cheap and efficient financial services belong to the poor and unbanked as much as they do the privileged and over-entitled. Bitcoin, DeFi and Dai represent a form of money and an approach to financial services that belongs to the people. That’s why our monetary overlords and the private actors who asymmetrically benefit from their existence are starting to worry.

If that sounds hyperbolic to you, consider the following: government mandated know-your-client and sanctions requirements, as enforced through the legacy banking system, make it literally illegal for banks to take on hundreds of millions of impoverished or undocumented people as their clients. A disproportionate percentage of those people are minorities. Being locked out of banking forces them to rely on expensive prepaid debit cards or exorbitant remittance services to survive. Stablecoins (such as the proposed Libra/Diem) solve this problem, because anyone with a smartphone can now access digital dollars and transmit them for mere pennies. And yet, no lesser champions of the poor and minorities as congresswomen Rashida Tlaib and Maxine Waters are leading the charge against “dollars on the blockchain.” Their proposed regulations and speeches make it obvious they don’t really understand the technology they want to curtail, but once again, those in power default to doing more, not less. Why? Because they feel threatened.

The timing of the current crypto rally is rather unfortunate for the powers that be. It would be a lot easier for the Federal Reserve to argue that printing money to directly subsidize Apple’s share buyback program is the best way to help the unemployed, or for the European Central Bank to argue that monetizing the majority of the continent’s debt won’t end badly, or for banking regulators to demand even greater surveillance and control over our financial lives if there wasn’t an alternative. Don’t like what’s happening with the Dollar or the Euro? Prefer a financial system that doesn’t lock out poor people? Think your favorite restaurant deserves more of your money than Visa? Concerned about the financial surveillance state? Tired of being treated like a criminal when you’ve done nothing wrong? Well, now there’s a blockchain for that.

If the stewards of the old guard had any confidence in their increasingly radical Monterey and banking schemes, they would welcome the competition. Why care about Bitcoin or DeFi if you were certain that negative interest rates — a condition that has never existed in the 10,000 year history of money — can cure a virus. That the Treasury officials and central bakers of the world do care shows that deep down inside, they know they are on thin ice. Even the most obtuse bureaucrat must recognize by now that decades of money madness has failed to produce anything other than wealth inequality and populist uprisings. But they’ve painted themselves in a corner, because thanks to their artificially low interest rates and endless bailouts there is more debt than ever, and the mega-corporations and billionaires who governments care most about can’t withstand any kind of reset. So the money madness must continue, and will soon take on a new form.

As with digital communication, a technology that cannot be corrupted by those in power will soon be co-opted by them. Enter central bank digital currencies, or CBDCs. The same central bankers who saw nothing interesting about blockchain a few years ago are now looking into using it to digitize their own currencies. They talk a big game about the need to upgrade money, curtail transaction fees or increase financial inclusion, but the real reason institutions like the ECB are on a crash course with digital euros is because of the additional tools CBDCs enable. Economists are already unhappy about the fact that physical money gives ordinary people a way to opt out of insane policies like negative interest rates. CBDCs will eliminate that option, and by virtue of switching society unto digital cash, introduce centralized control levers that would make Stalin’s economic planners drool with envy. No longer will central bankers have to fiddle with interest rates or the bond market to add stimulus or create inflation. The next time there’s a financial crisis, global pandemic or alien invasion (all things economists believe can be fixed with inflation) then the bureaucrats will just program all of our digital tokens to magically grow! Parisians who go to bed with 100 digital euros in their smartphone wallet will wake up to find 102, and Voilà, instant inflation. Baguette prices will rise, the oceans will recede and there will finally be peace for our time.

CBDCs will enable monetary control to an extent that has never existed before. If inflation proves not to be a cure all, then governments can try even more radical solutions. How about programming money that sits in people’s wallets for too long to shrink? Or paying digital benefits that must be spent within a week before they disappear? (and further programming those benefits to only be spendable at certain businesses, the executives of which just happen to have close ties to those in power). CBDCs will also make life easier for overly-aggressive cops with little respect for your constitutional rights. They’ll no longer have to bother getting a warrant to get past the legal department of your commercial bank. They’ll just call up the tech department of your central bank.

But as far as stopping the crypto juggernaut is concerned, co-option won’t work either. CBDCs will only increase the appeal of decentralized money, in the same way that the US government’s proposed surveillance chip accelerated the development of better private encryption tools such as PGP, or how Edward Snowden’s revelations of NSA snooping led to end-to-end encryption being deployed by most commercial chat apps. The drive towards central bank digital currencies is extremely bullish for the likes of Bitcoin and Ether. They add credibility to the underlying blockchain infrastructure while exposing the farce that fiat currency has become. They also normalize technical elements like private keys and digital wallets, making the transition from centralized money to the decentralized variety easier than ever.

Government attempts at restricting this migration will only backfire. Bitcoin is already being upgraded to improve user privacy, and privacy coins like Monero are starting to rally. The more the Emperor tries to stop us from wearing whatever we want, the more obvious it becomes that he’s buck naked.

None of this inevitable, and governments the world over still have all the power they need to prevent the coming monetary migration. They can always stop the printing presses, stop enslaving our children with record amounts of debt, stop using the commercial banking system as a foreign policy tool and stop excluding tens of millions of poor and underprivileged people from financial services because a few might do something illegal. But then the stock market would fall a little bit, Trump would tweet a lot and “politically independent” Fed officials might be forced to have their first original thought in thirty years.

In other words, it ain’t gonna happen. The Empire will continue to strike back, with predictable results. Plan accordingly.

Override Early Access
On

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Buried Project Veritas Recording Shows Top Pfizer Scientists Suppressed Concerns Over COVID-19 Boosters, MRNA Tech

Buried Project Veritas Recording Shows Top Pfizer Scientists Suppressed Concerns Over COVID-19 Boosters, MRNA Tech

Submitted by Liam Cosgrove

Former…

Published

on

Buried Project Veritas Recording Shows Top Pfizer Scientists Suppressed Concerns Over COVID-19 Boosters, MRNA Tech

Submitted by Liam Cosgrove

Former Project Veritas & O’Keefe Media Group operative and Pfizer formulation analyst scientist Justin Leslie revealed previously unpublished recordings showing Pfizer’s top vaccine researchers discussing major concerns surrounding COVID-19 vaccines. Leslie delivered these recordings to Veritas in late 2021, but they were never published:

Featured in Leslie’s footage is Kanwal Gill, a principal scientist at Pfizer. Gill was weary of MRNA technology given its long research history yet lack of approved commercial products. She called the vaccines “sneaky,” suggesting latent side effects could emerge in time.

Gill goes on to illustrate how the vaccine formulation process was dramatically rushed under the FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization and adds that profit incentives likely played a role:

"It’s going to affect my heart, and I’m going to die. And nobody’s talking about that."

Leslie recorded another colleague, Pfizer’s pharmaceutical formulation scientist Ramin Darvari, who raised the since-validated concern that repeat booster intake could damage the cardiovascular system:

None of these claims will be shocking to hear in 2024, but it is telling that high-level Pfizer researchers were discussing these topics in private while the company assured the public of “no serious safety concerns” upon the jab’s release:

Vaccine for Children is a Different Formulation

Leslie sent me a little-known FDA-Pfizer conference — a 7-hour Zoom meeting published in tandem with the approval of the vaccine for 5 – 11 year-olds — during which Pfizer’s vice presidents of vaccine research and development, Nicholas Warne and William Gruber, discussed a last-minute change to the vaccine’s “buffer” — from “PBS” to “Tris” — to improve its shelf life. For about 30 seconds of these 7 hours, Gruber acknowledged that the new formula was NOT the one used in clinical trials (emphasis mine):


“The studies were done using the same volume… but contained the PBS buffer. We obviously had extensive consultations with the FDA and it was determined that the clinical studies were not required because, again, the LNP and the MRNA are the same and the behavior — in terms of reactogenicity and efficacy — are expected to be the same.

According to Leslie, the tweaked “buffer” dramatically changed the temperature needed for storage: “Before they changed this last step of the formulation, the formula was to be kept at -80 degrees Celsius. After they changed the last step, we kept them at 2 to 8 degrees celsius,” Leslie told me.

The claims are backed up in the referenced video presentation:

I’m no vaccinologist but an 80-degree temperature delta — and a 5x shelf-life in a warmer climate — seems like a significant change that might warrant clinical trials before commercial release.

Despite this information technically being public, there has been virtually no media scrutiny or even coverage — and in fact, most were told the vaccine for children was the same formula but just a smaller dose — which is perhaps due to a combination of the information being buried within a 7-hour jargon-filled presentation and our media being totally dysfunctional.

Bohemian Grove?

Leslie’s 2-hour long documentary on his experience at both Pfizer and O’Keefe’s companies concludes on an interesting note: James O’Keefe attended an outing at the Bohemian Grove.

Leslie offers this photo of James’ Bohemian Grove “GATE” slip as evidence, left on his work desk atop a copy of his book, “American Muckraker”:

My thoughts on the Bohemian Grove: my good friend’s dad was its general manager for several decades. From what I have gathered through that connection, the Bohemian Grove is not some version of the Illuminati, at least not in the institutional sense.

Do powerful elites hangout there? Absolutely. Do they discuss their plans for the world while hanging out there? I’m sure it has happened. Do they have a weird ritual with a giant owl? Yep, Alex Jones showed that to the world.

My perspective is based on conversations with my friend and my belief that his father is not lying to him. I could be wrong and am open to evidence — like if boxer Ryan Garcia decides to produce evidence regarding his rape claims — and I do find it a bit strange the club would invite O’Keefe who is notorious for covertly filming, but Occam’s razor would lead me to believe the club is — as it was under my friend’s dad — run by boomer conservatives the extent of whose politics include disliking wokeness, immigration, and Biden (common subjects of O’Keefe’s work).

Therefore, I don’t find O’Keefe’s visit to the club indicative that he is some sort of Operation Mockingbird asset as Leslie tries to depict (however Mockingbird is a 100% legitimate conspiracy). I have also met James several times and even came close to joining OMG. While I disagreed with James on the significance of many of his stories — finding some to be overhyped and showy — I never doubted his conviction in them.

As for why Leslie’s story was squashed… all my sources told me it was to avoid jail time for Veritas executives.

Feel free to watch Leslie’s full documentary here and decide for yourself.

Fun fact — Justin Leslie was also the operative behind this mega-viral Project Veritas story where Pfizer’s director of R&D claimed the company was privately mutating COVID-19 behind closed doors:

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/12/2024 - 13:40

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Association of prenatal vitamins and metals with epigenetic aging at birth and in childhood

“[…] our findings support the hypothesis that the intrauterine environment, particularly essential and non-essential metals, affect epigenetic aging…

Published

on

“[…] our findings support the hypothesis that the intrauterine environment, particularly essential and non-essential metals, affect epigenetic aging biomarkers across the life course.”

Credit: 2024 Bozack et al.

“[…] our findings support the hypothesis that the intrauterine environment, particularly essential and non-essential metals, affect epigenetic aging biomarkers across the life course.”

BUFFALO, NY- March 12, 2024 – A new research paper was published in Aging (listed by MEDLINE/PubMed as “Aging (Albany NY)” and “Aging-US” by Web of Science) Volume 16, Issue 4, entitled, “Associations of prenatal one-carbon metabolism nutrients and metals with epigenetic aging biomarkers at birth and in childhood in a US cohort.”

Epigenetic gestational age acceleration (EGAA) at birth and epigenetic age acceleration (EAA) in childhood may be biomarkers of the intrauterine environment. In this new study, researchers Anne K. Bozack, Sheryl L. Rifas-Shiman, Andrea A. Baccarelli, Robert O. Wright, Diane R. Gold, Emily Oken, Marie-France Hivert, and Andres Cardenas from Stanford University School of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Columbia University, and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai investigated the extent to which first-trimester folate, B12, 5 essential and 7 non-essential metals in maternal circulation are associated with EGAA and EAA in early life. 

“[…] we hypothesized that OCM [one-carbon metabolism] nutrients and essential metals would be positively associated with EGAA and non-essential metals would be negatively associated with EGAA. We also investigated nonlinear associations and associations with mixtures of micronutrients and metals.”

Bohlin EGAA and Horvath pan-tissue and skin and blood EAA were calculated using DNA methylation measured in cord blood (N=351) and mid-childhood blood (N=326; median age = 7.7 years) in the Project Viva pre-birth cohort. A one standard deviation increase in individual essential metals (copper, manganese, and zinc) was associated with 0.94-1.2 weeks lower Horvath EAA at birth, and patterns of exposures identified by exploratory factor analysis suggested that a common source of essential metals was associated with Horvath EAA. The researchers also observed evidence of nonlinear associations of zinc with Bohlin EGAA, magnesium and lead with Horvath EAA, and cesium with skin and blood EAA at birth. Overall, associations at birth did not persist in mid-childhood; however, arsenic was associated with greater EAA at birth and in childhood. 

“Prenatal metals, including essential metals and arsenic, are associated with epigenetic aging in early life, which might be associated with future health.”

 

Read the full paper: DOI: https://doi.org/10.18632/aging.205602 

Corresponding Author: Andres Cardenas

Corresponding Email: andres.cardenas@stanford.edu 

Keywords: epigenetic age acceleration, metals, folate, B12, prenatal exposures

Click here to sign up for free Altmetric alerts about this article.

 

About Aging:

Launched in 2009, Aging publishes papers of general interest and biological significance in all fields of aging research and age-related diseases, including cancer—and now, with a special focus on COVID-19 vulnerability as an age-dependent syndrome. Topics in Aging go beyond traditional gerontology, including, but not limited to, cellular and molecular biology, human age-related diseases, pathology in model organisms, signal transduction pathways (e.g., p53, sirtuins, and PI-3K/AKT/mTOR, among others), and approaches to modulating these signaling pathways.

Please visit our website at www.Aging-US.com​​ and connect with us:

  • Facebook
  • X, formerly Twitter
  • Instagram
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit
  • Pinterest
  • Spotify, and available wherever you listen to podcasts

 

Click here to subscribe to Aging publication updates.

For media inquiries, please contact media@impactjournals.com.

 

Aging (Aging-US) Journal Office

6666 E. Quaker Str., Suite 1B

Orchard Park, NY 14127

Phone: 1-800-922-0957, option 1

###


Read More

Continue Reading

International

A beginner’s guide to the taxes you’ll hear about this election season

Everything you need to know about income tax, national insurance and more.

Cast Of Thousands/Shutterstock

National insurance, income tax, VAT, capital gains tax, inheritance tax… it’s easy to get confused about the many different ways we contribute to the cost of running the country. The budget announcement is the key time each year when the government shares its financial plans with us all, and announces changes that may make a tangible difference to what you pay.

But you’ll likely be hearing a lot more about taxes in the coming months – promises to cut or raise them are an easy win (or lose) for politicians in an election year. We may even get at least one “mini-budget”.

If you’ve recently entered the workforce or the housing market, you may still be wrapping your mind around all of these terms. Here is what you need to know about the different types of taxes and how they affect you.

The UK broadly uses three ways to collect tax:

1. When you earn money

If you are an employee or own a business, taxes are deducted from your salary or profits you make. For most people, this happens in two ways: income tax, and national insurance contributions (or NICs).

If you are self-employed, you will have to pay your taxes via an annual tax return assessment. You might also have to pay taxes this way for interest you earn on savings, dividends (distribution of profits from a company or shares you own) received and most other forms of income not taxed before you get it.

Around two-thirds of taxes collected come from people’s or business’ incomes in the UK.

2. When you spend money

VAT and excise duties are taxes on most goods and services you buy, with some exceptions like books and children’s clothing. About 20% of the total tax collected is VAT.

3. Taxes on wealth and assets

These are mainly taxes on the money you earn if you sell assets (like property or stocks) for more than you bought them for, or when you pass on assets in an inheritance. In the latter case in the UK, the recipient doesn’t pay this, it is the estate paying it out that must cover this if due. These taxes contribute only about 3% to the total tax collected.

You also likely have to pay council tax, which is set by the council you live in based on the value of your house or flat. It is paid by the user of the property, no matter if you own or rent. If you are a full-time student or on some apprenticeship schemes, you may get a deduction or not have to pay council tax at all.


Quarter life, a series by The Conversation

This article is part of Quarter Life, a series about issues affecting those of us in our 20s and 30s. From the challenges of beginning a career and taking care of our mental health, to the excitement of starting a family, adopting a pet or just making friends as an adult. The articles in this series explore the questions and bring answers as we navigate this turbulent period of life.

You may be interested in:

If you get your financial advice on social media, watch out for misinformation

Future graduates will pay more in student loan repayments – and the poorest will be worst affected

Selling on Vinted, Etsy or eBay? Here’s what you need to know about paying tax


Put together, these totalled almost £790 billion in 2022-23, which the government spends on public services such as the NHS, schools and social care. The government collects taxes from all sources and sets its spending plans accordingly, borrowing to make up any difference between the two.

Income tax

The amount of income tax you pay is determined by where your income sits in a series of “bands” set by the government. Almost everyone is entitled to a “personal allowance”, currently £12,570, which you can earn without needing to pay any income tax.

You then pay 20% in tax on each pound of income you earn (across all sources) from £12,570-£50,270. You pay 40% on each extra pound up to £125,140 and 45% over this. If you earn more than £100,000, the personal allowance (amount of untaxed income) starts to decrease.

If you are self-employed, the same rates apply to you. You just don’t have an employer to take this off your salary each month. Instead, you have to make sure you have enough money at the end of the year to pay this directly to the government.


Read more: Taxes aren't just about money – they shape how we think about each other


The government can increase the threshold limits to adjust for inflation. This tries to ensure any wage rise you get in response to higher prices doesn’t lead to you having to pay a higher tax rate. However, the government announced in 2021 that they would freeze these thresholds until 2026 (extended now to 2028), arguing that it would help repay the costs of the pandemic.

Given wages are now rising for many to help with the cost of living crisis, this means many people will pay more income tax this coming year than they did before. This is sometimes referred to as “fiscal drag” – where lower earners are “dragged” into paying higher tax rates, or being taxed on more of their income.

National insurance

National insurance contributions (NICs) are a second “tax” you pay on your income – or to be precise, on your earned income (your salary). You don’t pay this on some forms of income, including savings or dividends, and you also don’t pay it once you reach state retirement age (currently 66).

While Jeremy Hunt, the current chancellor of the exchequer, didn’t adjust income tax meaningfully in this year’s budget, he did announce a cut to NICs. This was a surprise to many, as we had already seen rates fall from 12% to 10% on incomes higher than £242/week in January. It will now fall again to 8% from April.


Read more: Budget 2024: experts explain what it means for taxpayers, businesses, borrowers and the NHS


While this is charged separately to income tax, in reality it all just goes into one pot with other taxes. Some, including the chancellor, say it is time to merge these two deductions and make this simpler for everyone. In his budget speech this year, Hunt said he’d like to see this tax go entirely. He thinks this isn’t fair on those who have to pay it, as it is only charged on some forms of income and on some workers.

I wouldn’t hold my breath for this to happen however, and even if it did, there are huge sums linked to NICs (nearly £180bn last year) so it would almost certainly have to be collected from elsewhere (such as via an increase in income taxes, or a lot more borrowing) to make sure the government could still balance its books.

A young black man sits at a home office desk with his feet up, looking at a mobile phone
Do you know how much tax you pay? Alex from the Rock/Shutterstock

Other taxes

There are likely to be further tweaks to the UK’s tax system soon, perhaps by the current government before the election – and almost certainly if there is a change of government.

Wealth taxes may be in line for a change. In the budget, the chancellor reduced capital gains taxes on sales of assets such as second properties (from 28% to 24%). These types of taxes provide only a limited amount of money to the government, as quite high thresholds apply for inheritance tax (up to £1 million if you are passing on a family home).

There are calls from many quarters though to look again at these types of taxes. Wealth inequality (the differences between total wealth held by the richest compared to the poorest) in the UK is very high (much higher than income inequality) and rising.

But how to do this effectively is a matter of much debate. A recent study suggested a one-off tax on total wealth held over a certain threshold might work. But wealth taxes are challenging to make work in practice, and both main political parties have already said this isn’t an option they are considering currently.

Andy Lymer and his colleagues at the Centre for Personal Financial Wellbeing at Aston University currently or have recently received funding for their research work from a variety of funding bodies including the UK's Money and Pension Service, the Aviva Foundation, Fair4All Finance, NEST Insight, the Gambling Commission, Vivid Housing and the ESRC, amongst others.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending