Taxation

More stories

  • 113 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    I.R.S. Unveils $80 Billion Plan to Overhaul Tax Collection

    by

    The 10-year strategy document outlines a focus on improving customer service and cracking down on tax evasion by corporations and the wealthy.WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service on Thursday unveiled an $80 billion plan to transform itself into a “digital first” tax collector focused on customer service and cracking down on wealthy tax evaders. The move lays the groundwork for an ambitious 10-year overhaul of one of the most scrutinized arms of the federal government.The effort is a key part of President Biden’s economic agenda, which aims to reduce the nation’s $7 trillion of uncollected tax revenue and use the funds to combat climate change, curb prescription drug prices and pay for other initiatives prized by Democrats.The plan is also at the heart of the White House’s goal of making tax administration fairer. The report indicates that more than half the new money will be dedicated to ensuring that rich investors and large corporations cannot avoid paying the taxes that they owe.The $80 billion is the largest single infusion of funds in the agency’s history and was included in the Inflation Reduction Act, the sweeping climate and energy legislation that Democrats pushed through last year.According to the Biden administration, the investment will yield hundreds of billions of dollars in deficit reduction. But efforts to bolster the I.R.S. have drawn strong opposition from Republicans, who have long accused the agency of improperly targeting them.The report released Thursday was requested by Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen, whose department oversees the tax agency.In a memorandum to Ms. Yellen that accompanied the report, Daniel I. Werfel, the new I.R.S. commissioner, said he would focus new enforcement resources on “hiring the accountants, attorneys and data scientists needed to pursue high-income and high-wealth individuals, complex partnerships and large corporations that are not paying the taxes they owe.”Daniel I. Werfel, the new I.R.S. commissioner, said the agency’s staff expansion would aim to improve its ability to collect unpaid taxes from the wealthy and big corporations.Shuran Huang for The New York TimesThe I.R.S. has about 80,000 full-time employees, about 20 percent fewer than it had in 2010 even though the U.S. population is now larger and the tax system more complex. The agency’s resources have also declined over the years, as Republicans have sought to cut its funding and, in some cases, called for its abolition. The financial strain has led to backlogs of tax filings, delayed refunds, long waits for taxpayers who call the agency with questions and plunging audit rates.In recent months, the I.R.S. has ramped up hiring to improve its customer service capacity and has been racing to complete the processing of old tax returns, most of which were filed on paper rather than electronically.The plan released on Thursday details how the I.R.S. intends to become a “digital first” organization that provides “world class” service to taxpayers. That includes the replacement of antiquated technology and the introduction of systems that will allow taxpayers greater access to their financial information, easier communication with the I.R.S. and new ways to correct errors as returns are being filed.The most sweeping and politically sensitive changes involve enforcement. The I.R.S. plans to introduce more data analytics and machine-learning technology to better detect cheating, and it aims to bolster its teams of revenue agents and tax attorneys so that the agency is not overwhelmed when auditing complicated business partnerships or corporations.The I.R.S. plan repeatedly emphasizes that it will honor Ms. Yellen’s directive that the new money not be aimed at increasing audit rates for taxpayers who earn less than $400,000 a year — a pledge meant to align with Mr. Biden’s promise not to raise taxes on low- and middle-income Americans. The plan echoes Ms. Yellen’s assurance that those audit rates will not rise above “historical levels,” but does not specify the levels, suggesting that audit rates could rise above their existing levels.In a briefing for reporters on Thursday, however, Mr. Werfel said that in the near term, audit rates for those making less than $400,000 would not rise.“We have years of work ahead of us, where we will be 100 percent focused on building capacity for higher-income individuals and corporations,” he said.But Janet Holtzblatt, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, said it would be a challenge for the I.R.S. to determine whether taxpayers reporting an income under $400,000 were doing so legitimately, without being able to audit some of them initially. Ultimately, she said, the agency will need to decide on an acceptable audit rate for people under that income level.Mr. Werfel acknowledged that the I.R.S. would have to be alert in instances when taxpayers earn, for example, $5 million in a given year and $399,000 a year later.“We might take a second look at that,” he said.The plan lays out benchmarks for many of its goals, but it leaves unanswered questions.The I.R.S. is in the midst of a $15 million study to determine if it can create its own system enabling more taxpayers to file their federal returns online at no cost. This idea has met resistance from lobbying groups representing the tax preparation industry.The agency has faced criticism this year after the publication of a study that showed Black taxpayers are at least three times as likely as other taxpayers to face I.R.S. audits, even after the study accounted for the differences in the types of returns that each group is most likely to file. The plan includes using data to support “equity analyses” and says a key project will be developing procedures to evaluate the fairness of I.R.S. systems.The Treasury Department said earlier that the investment in the I.R.S. would lead to the hiring of 87,000 employees over 10 years, and has suggested that with anticipated attrition its head count could top 110,000 by the end of the decade. But the operating plan does not give an estimate for the agency’s eventual head count, and Wally Adeyemo, the deputy Treasury secretary, said on Thursday that I.R.S. did not want to be “locked in” to long-term hiring requirements before learning how new technology would affect its staffing needs.Mr. Werfel batted down claims by Republican lawmakers that the I.R.S. would be hiring thousands of armed “agents” to scrutinize middle-class taxpayers and small businesses. He said that only 3 percent of the I.R.S. work force was in the criminal investigations division, which has access to weapons, and that there were no plans to increase that percentage. The plan projects that the I.R.S. will hire more than 7,000 new enforcement employees over the next two years.Despite efforts to focus on technology and taxpayers services, the plan is likely to stoke criticism.Erin M. Collins, the national taxpayer advocate, wrote in a blog post on Thursday that the plan had the potential to transform tax administration but that the money was disproportionately invested in enforcement.“I believe Congress should reallocate I.R.S. funding to achieve a better balance with taxpayer service needs and IT modernization,” Ms. Collins, who serves as a watchdog for the I.R.S., wrote.The report notes that if the agency’s annual funding is curtailed over the coming years, some of the $80 billion might be needed to maintain its basic operations. That would force the I.R.S. to scale back its overhaul.House Republicans in January voted to pare the allocation, and Republican reaction to the report on Thursday indicated that the political fight over the I.R.S. will only intensify.“The Democrats are further weaponizing the most-feared agency in all of the federal government: the IRS,” Representative Mike Kelly, Republican of Pennsylvania and a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, said on Twitter. “Make no mistake — we are using money from hardworking American taxpayers to go after hardworking American taxpayers.”Former Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, said on Twitter, “Does anyone believe the IRS won’t go after middle America?” More

  • 138 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    Biden’s $6.8 Trillion Budget Proposes New Social Programs and Higher Taxes

    by

    WASHINGTON — President Biden on Thursday proposed a $6.8 trillion budget that sought to increase spending on the military and a wide range of new social programs while also reducing future budget deficits, defying Republican calls to scale back government and reasserting his economic vision before an expected re-election campaign.The budget contains some $5 trillion in proposed tax increases on high earners and corporations over a decade, much of which would offset new spending programs aimed at the middle class and the poor. It seeks to reduce budget deficits by nearly $3 trillion over that time, compared with the country’s current path.It reaffirms Mr. Biden’s case that he can prevent the growing debt burden from weighing on the economy while expanding spending and protecting popular safety-net programs — almost entirely by asking companies and the wealthy to pay more in taxes.But after claiming credit for a $1.7 trillion decline in the annual deficit over the past year, Mr. Biden now sees the deficit increasing again in the 2024 fiscal year, to $1.8 trillion. The jump is larger than other forecasters, like the Congressional Budget Office, have projected. It is driven by rising costs of servicing the national debt as the Federal Reserve raises interest rates to curb inflation and by new programs the president is proposing that are not fully offset by tax increases in their first year.The plan drew swift criticism from Republicans, who are locked in an economically perilous debate with Mr. Biden over the borrowing limit, which House conservatives refuse to raise unless he agrees to sharp spending cuts.Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the top Republican on the Budget Committee, said Mr. Biden’s spending blueprint was “an unserious proposal and will be treated as such by both parties in Congress.”The budget plan, he said, “is a road map for fiscal ruin.”The proposals stand little chance of becoming law because Republicans won control of the House in November. Instead, Mr. Biden’s budget request was a political statement of values aimed at winning public opinion amid the debt-limit fight and a nascent 2024 campaign.He unveiled the plan formally on Thursday in Philadelphia. His budget would “lift the burden off families in America,” the president said during a swing-state speech meant to contrast his economic vision with that of Republicans who have called for spending cuts.“My budget is about investing in America and all of America,” Mr. Biden said during a roughly 50-minute speech to scores of union workers, Biden supporters and local Pennsylvania politicians. “Too many people have been left behind and treated like they’re invisible. Not anymore. I promise I see you.”The president emphasized a message of bolstering manufacturing, an effort many of his allies believe can sway blue-collar workers who in recent years have lost faith in the Democratic Party.The proposals in the budget showcased Mr. Biden’s early success in expanding the federal government’s role in the economy, and they reaffirmed his push for more. On Mr. Biden’s watch, its numbers show, domestic spending in areas like research and support for manufacturing has grown significantly larger as a share of the economy than was considered in the budget plans of the last Democratic administration, under President Barack Obama, when Mr. Biden was vice president.An Intel semiconductor manufacturing facility in New Albany, Ohio, is part of Mr. Biden’s plan to rebuild American manufacturing.Pete Marovich for The New York TimesIn his first two years as president, Mr. Biden signed laws to expand and rebuild critical infrastructure like water pipes and highways, bolster U.S. manufacturing of semiconductors and other high-tech goods, and accelerate a transition from fossil fuels toward low-emission sources of energy to fight climate change. He delivered military aid to Ukraine in its fight against Russia and signed a bipartisan law to increase federal medical care for military veterans exposed to toxic burn pits.He also left much of his economic agenda unfinished, a fact reflected in his budget, which renewed calls for programs that failed to pass muster when his party controlled Congress..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.“This president clearly believes the way to grow this economy is investing in the middle class and working families,” Shalanda D. Young, the director of the White House budget office, told reporters on Thursday.The president’s budget proposed $400 billion to deliver affordable child care for parents, $150 billion for home care for older Americans and disabled people, and nearly $400 billion to make permanent expanded health coverage assistance through the Affordable Care Act. He would spend $325 billion to guarantee paid leave for workers and nearly $300 billion combined for free community college and prekindergarten for students. He is seeking $100 billion in additional assistance to lower housing costs for homeowners and renters.Mr. Biden would reinstate for three years an expanded child tax credit, which was included in the economic aid bill he signed in 2021 but expired last year, as a means of reducing child poverty. He would make permanent a change in the credit that allows people to benefit from it in full even if they do not make enough money to owe federal income taxes. Together, the changes would cost more than $400 billion.To help offset costs, Mr. Biden proposed a series of tax increases on corporations and the wealthiest Americans. They include a 25 percent tax aimed at billionaires (he requested a similar tax last year but at a lower rate: 20 percent). He also called for quadrupling a tax on stock buybacks and renewed his push to roll back President Donald J. Trump’s tax cuts for high earners and to raise the corporate income tax rate to 28 percent from 21 percent.Mr. Biden proposed increasing and expanding a tax on Americans earning more than $400,000 as part of efforts to extend the solvency of Medicare by a quarter-century. He is also seeking new savings for the government based on more aggressive negotiation over prescription drug prices.But for the third consecutive budget, Mr. Biden did not put forth any new initiatives to extend the solvency of Social Security — unlike during the 2020 campaign, when he sought to expand benefits and bolster the program’s trust fund by effectively raising payroll taxes on people earning more than $400,000 a year.The budget offered few paths to compromise between Mr. Biden and Republicans on fiscal issues. One potential area of common ground was responding to what both parties call a growing military and economic threat from China. The budget proposed $9.1 billion in investments next year through the Pentagon’s “Pacific Deterrence Initiative,” which includes expenditures on new weapons systems that can be used to protect allies and defend U.S. interests in the region. It also asks for $400 million to a fund dedicated to countering the influence of the Chinese Communist Party abroad, such as exposing Chinese disinformation campaigns.The budget also refers to various domestic investments, which the administration argues are needed to make the U.S. economy more competitive with China. That includes money for domestic research into agriculture, an area where it says China has become the largest funder of research, as well as major investments in the manufacturing of semiconductors, clean energy products and other technologies in the United States.Still, Speaker Kevin McCarthy of California and his lieutenants reiterated on Thursday that they intended to insist on significant reductions in spending before they would consider allowing the federal debt limit to be raised — even though a stalemate over the debt limit could shake the world economy and endanger the retirement savings of millions of Americans.“We must cut wasteful government spending,” Mr. McCarthy and the other members of his leadership team said in a joint statement issued after Mr. Biden’s budget was released. “Our debt is one of the greatest threats to America, and the time to address this crisis is now.”The budget sees the gross national debt increasing by about $18 trillion through 2033, rising to just above $50 trillion. But the administration suggests that growth will not threaten the economy. “The economic burden of debt would remain low and in line with recent historical experience over the next decade,” administration officials wrote in the proposal.Last year’s budget painted a rosy and ultimately over-optimistic picture of the U.S. economy. The administration expected gross domestic product to grow 4.2 percent after adjusting for inflation, for instance, but it ultimately climbed by a more modest 2.1 percent.The new budget’s projections were more muted, with a caveat. The White House sees the economy growing by only 0.6 percent after adjusting for inflation this year, a weak pace that is in line with outside expectations. It also predicted a substantial increase in the unemployment rate — to 4.3 percent, a notable rise from 3.4 percent in January. Alongside that slowdown, inflation is expected to moderate.But officials noted that the administration completed its projections in November and that economic data had been stronger than expected since. Administration economists said in a blog post that unemployment “would likely be lower” than the official forecast in light of that.Much of the budget’s contents were holdovers from Mr. Biden’s previous proposals. But there were also a few new plans. One of them was a tax on the energy used in creating new digital currency assets, known as cryptocurrency mining. That practice relies on large amounts of electricity and generates emissions that contribute to climate change.Administration officials want to discourage the practice, which they say impedes the country’s energy transition. So they proposed a 30 percent tax on the electricity used in it, phased in over three years, whether that comes from an electric utility or a localized source like a home solar panel, on the theory that the energy involved would be put to better purpose in another use.Reporting was contributed by More

  • 125 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    IRS Decision Not to Tax Certain Payments Carries Fiscal Cost

    by

    The Biden administration has opted not to tax state payments to residents, a decision that could add to the nation’s fiscal woes.WASHINGTON — More than 20 state governments, flush with cash from federal stimulus funds and a rebounding economy, shared their windfalls last year by sending residents one-time payments.This year, the Biden administration added a sweetener, telling tens of millions taxpayers they did not need to pay federal taxes on those payments.That decision by the Internal Revenue Service, while applauded by some tax experts and lawmakers, could cost the federal government as much $4 billion in revenue at a time when Washington is struggling with a ballooning federal deficit and entering a protracted fight over the nation’s debt limit.The I.R.S.’s ruling came after bipartisan pressure from lawmakers and was the latest move by the agency to forgo revenue this tax season.In December, the I.R.S. delayed by a year a new requirement that users of digital wallets like Venmo and Cash App report income on 1099-K forms if they had more than $600 of transactions. That requirement, which was part of the American Rescue Plan of 2021, was projected to raise nearly $1 billion in tax revenue per year over a decade. The last-minute decision to delay it followed intense lobbying from business groups and political backlash directed at the Biden administration, which was accused of breaking its pledge not to raise taxes on people making less than $400,000.Taken together, the moves by the I.R.S. run counter to two big economic issues bedeviling Washington — rapid inflation and concerns about the government’s ability to avoid defaulting on its debt.Allowing residents to avoid paying taxes on their state rebates means more money in their pockets to spend at a moment when the Federal Reserve is trying to rein in consumer and business spending to cool rising prices. A report released on Friday showed that, despite the Fed’s efforts to slow the economy, personal spending sped up in January.Understand the U.S. Debt CeilingCard 1 of 5What is the debt ceiling? More

  • 113 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    How the U.S. Government Amassed $31 Trillion in Debt

    by

    Two decades of tax cuts, recession responses and bipartisan spending fueled more borrowing — contributing $25 trillion to the total and setting the stage for another federal showdown.WASHINGTON — America’s debt is now six times what it was at the start of the 21st century. It is the largest it has been, compared with the size of the U.S. economy, since World War II, and it’s projected to grow an average of about $1.3 trillion a year for the next decade.The United States hit its $31.4 trillion legal limit on borrowing this past week, putting Washington on the brink of another fiscal showdown. Republicans are refusing to raise that limit unless President Biden agrees to steep spending cuts, echoing a partisan standoff that has played out multiple times in the last two decades.But America’s ballooning debt is the result of choices made by both Republicans and Democrats. Since 2000, politicians from both parties have made a habit of borrowing money to finance wars, tax cuts, expanded federal spending, care for baby boomers and emergency measures to help the nation endure two debilitating recessions.“There have been bipartisan tax cuts and bipartisan spending increases” driving that growth, said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget and perhaps the pre-eminent deficit hawk in Washington. “It’s not the simple story of Republicans cut taxes and Democrats grow spending. Actually, they all like to do all of it.”Few economists believe the level of debt is an economic crisis at the moment, though some believe the federal government has become so large that it is taking the place of private businesses, hurting growth in the process. But economists in Washington and on Wall Street are warning that failing to raise the debt limit before the government begins shirking its bills — as early as June — could prove catastrophic.Despite all the fighting, lawmakers have taken few steps to reduce the federal budget deficit they have produced. It has been nearly a quarter-century since the last time the government spent less than it received in taxes.Because spending programs today are so politically popular, and because retiring baby boomers are driving up the cost of programs like Social Security and Medicare every year, budget experts say it is unrealistic to expect the books to balance again for another decade or more.The White House estimates that borrowed money will be necessary to cover about one-fifth of a $6 trillion federal budget this fiscal year — a budget that includes military spending, the national parks, safety net programs and everything else the government provides.In just two decades, America has added $25 trillion in debt. How it got itself into this fiscal position has its roots in a political miscalculation at the end of the Cold War.President Lyndon B. Johnson signing Medicare into law in 1965. In part because of the popularity and rising costs of programs like Medicare, federal deficits are expected to continue for at least a decade.Associated PressIn the 1990s, America reaped a so-called peace dividend. It reduced spending on the military, believing it would never have to invest as much in national security as it had when the Soviet Union was a threat. At the same time, a dot-com boom delivered the highest federal tax receipts, as a share of the economy, in several decades.Understand the U.S. Debt CeilingCard 1 of 5What is the debt ceiling? More

  • 100 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Speaker Drama Raises New Fears on Debt Limit

    by

    An emboldened conservative flank and concessions made to win votes could lead to a protracted standoff on critical fiscal issues, risking economic pain.WASHINGTON — Representative Kevin McCarthy of California finally secured the House speakership in a dramatic middle-of-the-night vote early Saturday, but the deal he struck to win over holdout Republicans also raised the risks of persistent political gridlock that could destabilize the American financial system.Economists, Wall Street analysts and political observers are warning that the concessions he made to fiscal conservatives could make it very difficult for Mr. McCarthy to muster the votes to raise the debt limit. That could prevent Congress from doing the basic tasks of keeping the government open, paying the country’s bills and avoiding default on America’s trillions of dollars in debt.The speakership battle suggests President Biden and Congress could be on track later this year for the most perilous debt-limit debate since 2011, when former President Barack Obama and a new Republican majority in the House nearly defaulted on the nation’s debt before cutting an 11th-hour deal.“If everything we’re seeing is a symptom of a totally splintered House Republican conference that is going to be unable to come together with 218 votes on virtually any issue, it tells you that the odds of getting to the 11th hour or the last minute or whatever are very high,” Alec Phillips, the chief political economist for Goldman Sachs Research, said in an interview Friday.Representative Kevin McCarthy won the speakership early Saturday only after making a deal with hard-right lawmakers.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesThe federal government spends far more money each year than it receives in revenues, producing a budget deficit that is projected to average in excess of $1 trillion a year for the next decade. Those deficits will add to a national debt that topped $31 trillion last year.Federal law puts a limit on how much the government can borrow. But it does not require the government to balance its budget. That means lawmakers must periodically pass laws to raise the borrowing limit to avoid a situation in which the government is unable to pay all of its bills, jeopardizing payments including military salaries, Social Security benefits and debts to holders of government bonds. Goldman Sachs researchers estimate Congress will likely need to raise the debt limit sometime around August to stave off such a scenario.Understand the U.S. Debt CeilingCard 1 of 4What is the debt ceiling? More

  • 88 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    IRS Releases Inflation-Adjusted Tax Rates for 2023

    by

    Filers whose salaries have not kept pace with inflation could see savings on their federal income tax bills.WASHINGTON — The rapidly rising cost of food, energy and other daily staples could allow many Americans to reduce their tax bills next year, the I.R.S. confirmed on Tuesday.Tax rates are adjusted for inflation, which in typical times means incremental movements in the thresholds for what income is taxed at what rate. But after a year that brought America’s fastest price growth in four decades, the shift in rates is far more notable: an increase of about 7 percent.Other parts of the tax code will also be affected by the inflation adjustment. Those include the standard deduction Americans can claim on their tax returns.The shift would be slightly larger if not for a change Republicans made as part of President Donald J. Trump’s tax overhaul that was passed in 2017. It tied rates to a measure of inflation, called the chained Consumer Price Index, that typically rises more slowly than the standard Consumer Price Index. In September, chained C.P.I. was up about a quarter of a percentage point less, compared with the previous year, than standard C.P.I.In dollar figures, the shift will be largest at the highest end of the income spectrum, although all seven income brackets will adjust for inflation. The top income tax rate of 37 percent will apply next year to individuals earning $578,125 — or $693,750 for married couples who file joint returns. That is up from $539,900 for individuals this year. The difference: Nearly $40,000 worth of individual income is eligible to be taxed next year at a lower rate of 35 percent.Inflation F.A.Q.Card 1 of 5What is inflation? More

  • 113 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Economists Nervously Eye the Bank of England’s Market Rescue

    by

    The Bank of England stepped in to save a critical market this week. Economists say it was necessary but also worry about the precedent.When the Bank of England announced last week that it would buy bonds in unlimited quantities in an effort to stabilize the market for U.K. government debt, economists agreed it was probably a necessary move to prevent a cataclysmic financial crisis.They also worried it could set a dangerous precedent.Central banks defend the financial stability of the nations in which they operate. In an era of highly leveraged and deeply interconnected markets, that means that they sometimes have to buy bonds or backstop lending to prevent a problem in one area from spiraling into a crisis that threatens the entire financial system.But that backstop role also means that if a government does something to generate a major shock, politicians can be fairly confident that the local central bank will step in to stem the fallout.Some economists say that is essentially what happened in the United Kingdom. Liz Truss, the new prime minister, proposed a huge package of tax cuts and spending during a period of already high inflation, when standard economic theory suggests governments should do the opposite. Markets reacted forcefully: Yields on long-term government debt shot up, and the value of the British pound fell sharply relative to the dollar and other major currencies.The Bank of England announced that it would buy long-term government debt “on whatever scale is necessary” to prevent a full-blown financial crisis. The move was particularly striking because the bank had been poised to begin selling its bond holdings — a plan that is now postponed — and has been raising interest rates in a bid to bring down inflation.Economists broadly agreed that the bank’s decision was the right one. The rapid rise in interest rates sent shock waves through financial markets and upended a typically sleepy corner of the pension fund industry, which, left unaddressed, could have carried severe consequences for millions of workers and retirees, destabilizing the country’s entire financial system.“You saw very substantial market dislocation,” said Lawrence H. Summers, a former U.S. Treasury Secretary who is now at Harvard. “It’s a recognized role of central banks to respond to that.”To some economists, that was exactly the problem: By shielding the U.K. government from the full consequences of its actions — both preventing citizens from feeling the painful aftereffects and keeping government borrowing costs from shooting higher — the policy demonstrated that central bankers stand ready to clean up messy fallout. That could make it easier for elected leaders around the world to take similar risks in the future.Those concerns eased somewhat on Monday when Ms. Truss partly backed down, reversing plans to abolish the top income tax rate of 45 percent on high earners.But she appears poised to go forward with the rest of her proposed tax cuts and spending programs, putting the Bank of England in a delicate spot.Rising Inflation in BritainInflation Slows Slightly: Consumer prices are still rising at about the fastest pace in 40 years, despite a small drop to 9.9 percent in August.Interest Rates: On Sept. 22, the Bank of England raised its key rate by another half a percentage point, to 2.25 percent, as it tries to keep high inflation from becoming embedded in the nation’s economy.Mortgage Market: The uptick in interest rates roiled Britain’s mortgage market, leaving many homeowners calculating their potential future mortgage payments with alarm.Investor Worries: The financial markets have been grumbling with unease about Britain’s economic outlook. The government plan to freeze energy bills and cut taxes is not easing concerns.The “partial U-turn” from Ms. Truss “still leaves the Bank of England with a set of near-impossible choices,” analysts at Evercore ISI wrote in a note to clients. “The only way to alleviate this is for the government to take much bigger steps to restore credibility — but there is little sign this is imminent.”There’s a reason that the interplay between monetary policy and politics in the United Kingdom is garnering so much attention. Central banks have for decades closely guarded their independence from politics. They set their policies to either stoke the economy or to slow it down based on what was necessary to achieve their goals — in most cases, low and stable inflation — free from the control of elected officials.The logic behind that insulation is simple. If central bankers had to listen to politicians, they might let price increases get out of control in exchange for faster short-term growth that would help the party in power.Now, that independence is being tested, and not just in the United Kingdom. Central banks around the world are raising interest rates to try to fight inflation, resulting in slower growth and making it harder for governments to borrow and spend. That is likely to lead to tension — if not outright conflict — between central bankers and elected leaders.It is already beginning. A United Nations agency on Monday warned that the Federal Reserve risked a global recession and significant harm in developing countries, for instance. But the United Kingdom’s example is stark because the elected government is carrying out policy that works against what the nation’s central bank is trying to achieve.“One always worries that actions like these can affect incentives going forward,” said Karen Dynan, a Harvard economist who served as a top official in the Treasury Department under President Obama. “It’s basic economics: People respond to incentives, and fiscal policymakers are people.”Part of the issue is that it is hard for central bankers to single-mindedly focus on controlling inflation in an era when financial markets are fragile and susceptible to disruption — including disruptions caused by elected governments.Before 2008, the Fed had never used mass long-term bond purchases to calm markets in its modern era. It has now used them twice in the span of 12 years. In addition to last week’s moves, the Bank of England also turned to mass bond purchases to calm markets in 2020.Bank of England officials have stressed that the policies they announced last week are a temporary response to an immediate crisis. The bank plans to buy long-dated bonds for less than two weeks and says it will not hold them longer than necessary. The Treasury, not the bank, will be responsible for any financial losses. The bank said it remained committed to fighting inflation, and some economists have speculated that it could raise rates even more aggressively in light of the government’s growth-stoking policies.If the bank is able to hold to that plan, it could mitigate economists’ concerns about the longer-run risks of the program. If interest rates rise again and it gets more expensive for the government to borrow, Ms. Truss will still need to grapple with the costs of her proposed programs, just without facing an imminent financial crisis.But some economists warn that the Bank of England may find the situation harder to extricate itself from than it hopes. It may turn out that the bank needs to keep buying bonds longer than expected, or that it cannot sell them without threatening another crisis. That could have the unintentional side effect of giving the British government a helping hand — and it could demonstrate that it is hard for a big central bank to remove support from its economy when the elected government wants to do the opposite.Liz Truss, Britain’s prime minister, will still need to grapple with the costs of her proposed programs, but she won’t be facing an imminent financial crisis because of the Bank of England’s actions.Alberto Pezzali/Associated PressMs. Truss’s policies — particularly before her partial reversal on Monday — would work directly against the bank’s efforts to cool growth, stoking demand through lower taxes and increased spending. The rapid rise in bond yields last week suggested that investors expected inflation to rise even further.Under ordinary circumstances, these conditions would lead the Bank of England to do even more to bring down the inflation it had already been fighting, raising interest rates more quickly or selling more of its bond holdings. Some analysts early last week expected the bank to announce an emergency rate increase. Instead, the brewing financial crisis forced the bank to do, in effect, the opposite, lowering borrowing costs by buying bonds.While lowering rates and stoking the economy was not the point — just a side effect — some economists warn that those actions risk setting a dangerous precedent in which central banks can only tighten policy to control inflation if their national governments cooperate and do not roil markets in a way that threatens financial stability. That situation puts politicians more in the driver’s seat when it comes to making economic policy.Guillaume Plantin, a French economist who has studied the interplay between central banks and governments, likened the dynamic to a game of chicken: To avoid a financial crisis, either Ms. Truss had to abandon her tax-cut plans, or the Bank of England had to set aside, at least temporarily, its efforts to raise borrowing costs. The result: “The Bank of England had to chicken out,” he said.Policymakers have known for decades that when the government steps in to rescue private companies or individuals, it can encourage them to repeat the same risky behavior in the future, a situation known as “moral hazard.” But in the private sector, there are steps governments can take to offset those risks — regulating banks to reduce the risk of collapse, for example, or wiping out shareholders if the government does need to step in to help.It is less clear what monetary policymakers can do to prevent the government itself from taking advantage of the safety net a central bank provides.“There is a moral hazard here: You are protecting some people from the full consequences of their actions,” said Donald Kohn, a former Fed vice chair and a former member of the Bank of England’s Financial Policy Committee, who agreed that it is necessary to intervene to prevent market dysfunction. “If you think about the entities that benefited from this, one was the chancellor of the Exchequer, the government.”Some forecasters have warned that other central banks might have to pull back on their own efforts to fight inflation to avoid destabilizing financial markets. Some investors are speculating that the Fed will have to end its policy of shrinking government bond holdings early or risk stirring market turmoil, for instance.Not all of those scenarios would necessarily raise the same concerns. In the United States, the Biden administration and the Fed are both focused on fighting inflation, so any reversal by the central bank would probably not look like bowing to pressure from the elected government.Still, the common thread is that financial stability issues could become a hurdle in the fight against inflation — especially where governments do not decide to go along with the push to rein in prices. And how worrying the British precedent proves will depend on whether the Bank of England is capable of backing away from bond buying quickly.“Is this just an exigent moment that they needed to respond to, or does it give the fiscal authority room to be irresponsible?” said Paul McCulley, an economist and the former managing director at the investment firm PIMCO. “The question is who blinks.”Joe Rennison More