The media found a new target. This time it was people whose tax bills are reduced as a consequence of totally legitimate and laudable behaviour.

Let’s deal with “laudable” first. The country apparently approves of philanthropy. There is widespread support for charitable causes, from the arts to medical research, from help for the aged to charities for kids, good causes command respect.

The country also apparently approves of risk-takers establishing businesses that provide people with employment opportunities that might otherwise not exist.

Given these are perceived “good things”, governments of different hues have sought to create structures over the years to promote them. And because these good things involve individuals spending money, the structures have of necessity been money-related – which inevitably involves use of the tax system.

The Gift-Aid system is designed so that when a person gives money to charity, the charity can claim from the Treasury the basic rate tax deemed to relate to the donation. £10 donated becomes £12.50 to the charity. And a higher-rate tax payer is entitled to recover by way of tax relief the difference between his higher-rate, be it 40% or 50%, and the basic rate of 20% imputed into the donation. So a £400K charitable donation is worth £500K to the charity – and the donor gets a deduction for tax, if he’s a 50% tax payer, of £150K (50% – 20% times £500K).

Shock, horror! £150K tax saved! UK Uncut will have a field day!

But it’s cost him £400K to get it.

Don’t know about you, but personally, I’d rather not blow £400K simply to save myself £150K of tax. I’d grit my teeth, suffer the tax, and party on the net £250K I’d saved myself.

Similarly, the risk-taker might be making substantial losses in the business he’s set up. Horror of horrors!- he might get a tax break!

But the value of the tax break will only ever be a percentage of the losses that caused it.

The Chancellor now wants to cap unlimited tax reliefs at £50K or 25% of income, whichever is the higher.

Let’s look at an example. Let’s assume the person who gave £400K to charity had gross income of £1 million. Under the present regime, the charity gets £500K, a net £250K from the donor, and £250K from the Treasury.

Going forward, the individual can of course maintain his level of donation at £400K, but as his tax break will cease at £250K, he’ll more than likely cap his contribution at that level. In which case the charity will get £312.5K and the donor’s tax break will fall by £56,250. The charity will be £187,500 worse off, the Treasury £93,750 better off (£56,250 from the donor’s tax bill, £37,500 from the reduced top-up it pays the charity). The difference between the charity’s loss and the Treasury’s gain (£93,750) sits in the donor’s pocket.

Maybe he’ll give the extra away without a tax break – anything’s possible, however unlikely.

The same applies to establishing new businesses. The tax consequences of risk-taking are very much a part of the decision-making process as to whether or not to take the risk. Remove the tax break, you increase downside risk, making the risk-taker much more averse in the first place.

The media initially got this one completely wrong. Not surprising, given all it did is following the claptrap spouted by UK Uncut. And the Chancellor simply bought into this populist message, because frankly, it suited him – the less that goes to charities, the less business risks people take, the more tax revenues go to the Treasury. It’s just those “good things” that suffer.