Dan Neidle, who seems to think he is God's gift to neoliberal tax policy because he was once the head of tax at the highest-earning law firm in London, meaning he earned millions a year in that role, has said this on LinkedIn, in his typically dismissive style:
[T]here's a wider problem that most people on the Left don't want to talk about.
Margaret Thatcher said the problem with socialism is that you run out of other people's money. The more serious problem is that you run out of people. There just aren't enough very wealthy people to raise really serious amounts of tax from them.
If you want to raise large amounts of tax, you inevitably raise a good chunk of it from normal people.
But you don't have to believe me. Let's test this.
And what he then shows is that no neoliberal country is making any effort to raise money from wealth, as if that is proof that it is not possible.
Let me unpack what he is saying. The first thing is that because something has not been done, it cannot be done. If you want the evidence that neoliberal thinkers do not believe in innovation, that's it.
Second, he is suggesting there is always going to be a decidedly finite supply of wealthy people. If ever you wanted evidence that neoliberals think that either a) their system does not create sufficient new wealth so that more people might be wealthy or b) they don't want to share that wealth more widely if it is created, I think there we have the proof, from the adviser who, no doubt, helped ensure that was the case.
Third, and this one is by implication, but so, too, were the first two, is that if some of the wealthy leave, there won't be enough of them left to tax, and so things will be terrible for everyone else. What Dan Neidle fails to notice is that things are already terrible for everyone else, so on the basis of his argument, whether the rich leave makes absolutely no difference at all.
The truth is quite different from what Dan represents.
There are vast numbers of people who can innovate in the UK, but the ones most likely not to do so are the wealthy, because they are always far too frightened of losing their wealth to innovate. The other millions (and I mean that number) of potential innovators in the economy just need access to resources to enable them to innovate, and it would most definitely seem as if it is Dan's intent that they do not get access to them via the only agency that might make them available, which is the government via redistribution of wealth.
In addition, innovation on tax is possible. I accept that much of what the left talks about when it comes to tax is, regretably, not very clever or deliverable. I wish it were otherwise. I wish they would take note of the Taxing Wealth Report, which Dan has, in the past, been very rude about. However, I should add that he is rude about anyone to the left of Margaret Thatcher, despite being - I should add - a long-term member of the Labour Party. He was also always a major opponent of all tax justice initiatives, saying none of them would ever work when I helped promote them. Now, many are a functioning part of international tax law, so I think we can safely dismiss him on that point and instead note that the fact is that tax law innovation is possible: it is just not usually in the best interests of those whom Dan presumably always sought to serve during his law career.
And, as I note, if the wealthy leave, so what? Apparently, they don't pay enough tax to make a difference already, and things are already terrible. But the reality is the vast majority of them will stay, because they have nowhere else they want to go, their partners and children don't want to leave, their in-laws, dogs and horses want them to stay, and they can't tear themselves away from the social hierarchies they have created for themselves at the golf club or wherever else it might be and then face having to do that all over again.
In other words, Dan Neidle is another neoliberal cracked record, telling us we've never had it so good and that things can never get better even though it is glaringly obvious that the economic system to which he is so obviously dedicated is not creating wealth, is not creating well-being and is not sustainable because far too many are seeing all their economic prospects fading away. But, like an old 78 (and he's not 78, but appears to behave as if he is), he has no other tune to sing, so he keeps on churning out the same old nonsense in defence of the indefensible.
There's one thing to do with the likes of Dan, and that's ignore him. He might come out with some useful data every now and again, but he has no tax policy solutions worth noting, so what is the point in that? If anyone has passed their use-by date, it is Dan Neidle. He can't even appreciate that he has to move with the times, because he is so committed to the status quo.
1. Murphy, R. (2023) ‘Pointing out the massive under‑taxation of wealth in the UK is not nonsense – it is totally fair', Tax Research. Available here
2. Murphy, R. (2024) ‘Tax justice – Dan Neidle style', Tax Research. Available here
3. Murphy, R. (2024) ‘Dan Neidle's tax proposals are all about perpetuating existing economic power structures within our society', Tax Research. Available here
4. Murphy, R. (2024) ‘Wealth taxes can only be built on the foundations created by those who fought tax havens', Tax Research. Available here
5. Murphy, R. (2024) ‘Why isn't the “normal return” to work tax free?', Tax Research. Available here
6. Murphy, R. (2025) ‘What Dan Neidle gets wrong about tax on wealth', Tax Research. Available here
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
[…] I have noted elsewhere this morning (with some light editing added for this […]
We are living in a World where division needs to be healed!! You both agree that wealth is undertaxed. Is there a middle way? Perhaps a modest wealth tax alongside tightened existing wealth-related taxes and closing loopholes could harness both fairness and feasibility?
I do not think Dan does think there is a need to tax wealth more. He is opposed to many taxes already levied on wealth.
I think that you made a great point a couple of years ago when asking: “There are lots of countries in the world with higher state spending than the UK. How many of those countries have higher state spending than the UK, but the same or less tax on the median earner? ” and then saying that just because the answer was zero, that it doesn’t mean it couldn’t be done. Taxing wealth the right way has never been tried.
Margaret Thatcher may well have said the problem with socialism is that you run out of other people’s money.
Conversely, the problem with neoliberal capitalism is that you eventually run out of selling the country’s assets.
Very good
I did suggest to him – in addition to your TW proposals that he might try confronting why 30 year olds could no longer afford a house – renting or buying – and 30 percent children in poverty, and hundreds of thousands homeless, and millions not able to afford food shelter and warmth
He doesn’t seem interested in trying to analyse what’s happened over the last twenty years – and whether he has any lessons to be learned – and indeed he descends to dismissive abuse on your TW report proposals.
I can only presume Dan lives in a bubble of the very wealthy. He very rarely shows interest in anything or anyone else.
Dan is quite an odious individual and looks down his nose at everyone but his own reflection.. The only good thing he has done is exposing Nadhim Zahawi when hit with a gag order. Dan is LINO and many of their sort have penetrated the Labour party – same as the democrats in the USA. Makes me think of Chris Hedges book “Death of the Liberal Class”
Down here on my estate many people try to survive poverty by home-crafts (and our local HobbyCraft is about to close – so much for big corporate capital).
In a local small “green business park” they now have acces to a (public/charity funded) little factory (Filwood Factory, part of Knowle West Media Centre) with some amazing hi-tech equipment and training on how to use it (3D printer and other amazing types of printer, its all beyond me, CAD software, computer controlled litho cutters and multi-thread sewing/embroidery machines, including use of AI) which has the potential to enhance their creativity, increase their output, and boost their dignity, because they are not “taken over” but respected and empowered. Our men’s group used it to make a beautiful memorial bench/planter for our late group co-ordinator, to put into a sensory garden in our local health park.
A very small, very local, and very inspiring example of a mixed economy?
Very good.
Sounds like fun to me.
I like 3D printing and have used it. Good for model railways
I think in a senior moment I put this in the wrong thread
It should be in “mixed economy” really. Never mind.
The question to me is not how much “wealth” wealthy people have, but how much they contribute to the country in real terms. Mostly they are parasites in this country. It’s better off without them.
We know that all wealth is merely money that the government has spent into the economy that has been captured. An undeserving few have found the means to sequester obscene amounts of government money. If these few want to leave or do not want to share the benefit of their good fortune I say fine….cut them adrift. Then ensure that government spread its largesse more widely. I’m sure that a majority of people would, hypothetically, be delighted to receive an extra £10,000 a year and be happy to forgo £2000 of it for vastly improved public services.
This is note true:
“We know that all wealth is merely money that the government has spent into the economy that has been captured.”
Of course not all wealth is created in that way.
I am planning to do a lot more on this issue.
I look forward to having my understanding expanded. I was under the impression that government was the only source of money that didn’t need to be repaid and is not subject to interest.
But not all money is wealth, by a very long way. So, your claim is wrong.
Dan isn’t v good at presenting a logical argument, is he?
The problem with increasing inequaliy is indeed a v small number of people with a huge and ever-increasing amount of wealth – so much wealth that the imbalance it creates seriously damages the whole global and domestic economy. This isn’t class envy, this is the rational observation that gross inequality is economically, socially, politically and morally damaging – it makes the world a WORSE place.
Dan then suggests these persecuted rich non-doms will leave. Maybe they will. I wish they would, I hear St. Helena is nice, or Christmas Island.
But it’s not quite the same as watching a Gazan or Sudanese or Afghan family being violently displaced for the umpteenth time with their meagre posessions piled on a handcart.
It’s as if the non-doms are rushing to stuff all their wealth into Louis Vuitton bags, before hurriedly taking off in private jets, £50 notes fluttering along the runway as the cargo doors close.
Last time I checked , most of the non-dom billionaire owned property in London was still sitting there – it doesn’t fit easily onto into the cargo bay of a Gulfstream jet.
If they choose to leave, and they want to realise the value of their Hyde Park apartments, or grouse moors, then the Taxing Wealth Report 2024 has ways of taxing the transfer of wealth, the banking of wealth, the sale or transfer of financial assets, & the movement of wealth. Or we could begin seizing empty property, we have the powers but wont use them.
The question for me, is: “What possible justification is there for giving a very small number of people with most of the money, land, privileges and exemptions denied to all the rest of us, who are busting our guts to try, against a LOT of opposition from the greedy and callous, to make the world a better place.
I am constantly amazed at how whenever there is any move to redistribute wealth, or make the slightest adjustment to our trickle up economics, people like Dan Neidle tell us the sky will fall in.
No Dan, the country will just become a tiny bit fairer. Is that a problem?
Meanwhile we have a country to fix. Reform won’t do it nor will the STP.
It would be easier to take you seriously if you didn’t constantly resort to ad hominen attacks. It is possible to argue that the relationship he identifies is not destiny, and that his arguments for why we can’t raise more tax from wealth are flawed, without being such a dick about it.
Have you noticed what he says about me?
I am positively restrained, as ever.
You reveal youself as the dick.
I saw the original post in which he didn’t mention you (by name at least) and his response, in which he was curt but did not resort to the same level of name-calling. Maybe he did elsewhere, in which case at the very least, you are both as bad as each other. But your reflexive response “no! you’re the dick!” just illustrates my point.
Listen to a random guy in the comments, or don’t, no skin off my back, but in my view I can’t imagine you are helping your arguments by being so childish in response to criticism.
I have engaged with Dan over many years.
I was referring to comments both recent and over all this years. You extrapolated from a microcosm and, surprise, surprise, got things wrong. Trolling extraordinaire.
Whilst not in any way minimising or disagreeing with what you wrote, I was somewhat amused that you devote a whole article to someone who is best ignored.
I have to state my reasons for suggesting doing so.
Neoliberalism was meant to make us all wealthy so that inequality no longer matters. Neoliberals can talk about the left running out of money all they want. They seem to be also saying there aren’t enough wealthy people to pay tax. Well if we were in system which actually delivered wealth, that wouldn’t be a problem.
It’s not a surprise Neidle writes in defence of the wealthy — they’re his client base. He’s paid to lobby for them.
Not now he isn’t. But he was.
Are you sure?
No, but he says he takes no external funding, and I am taking him at his word.
Dan Neidle is a phenomenon of our time.
It goes like this.
He states there is a problem, feigns concern, empathy, acknowledges contradictions, appears to search his conscience……………
……………….And then does fuck all.
It actually beggars belief that anyone could be stupid enough to make the statements Neidle does when the well known reality is that:
The distribution of wealth in the UK is sharply skewed toward the very rich. According to the latest data from the Office for National Statistics, the top 1% of households—those with at least £3.1 million in assets—own around 10% of the nation’s total household wealth. The top 10% hold about 41%, while the wealthiest half of households control a staggering 91% of all wealth. In contrast, the bottom 50% of households share just 9% between them.
He gets it Intrinsically wrong because it is not, and never was ‘other people’s money’ – but at best ‘misdirected'(= theft)
I’m 78 and I don’t behave like Dan Niedle, nor do I share his economic beliefs. I’m fed up of the chattering classes promoting the idea that, if you are a certain age, these are your beliefs. Some of us have actually moved further left in our old age, as we observe the world going to hell in a handcart.
Sorry Mike
Maybe not a good joke…