0:00

This BBC podcast is supported

0:02

by ads outside the UK.

0:06

I'm Zing Singh and I'm Simon Jack and

0:08

together we host Good Bad billionaire the

0:10

podcast exploring the lives of some

0:12

of the world's richest people in the

0:14

new season We're setting our sights on some

0:17

big names. Yep LeBron James and Martha

0:19

Stewart to name just a few and as

0:21

always Simon and I are trying to decide

0:23

whether we think they're good bad or just

0:25

another billionaire that's good bad billionaire

0:27

from the BBC world service Listen

0:30

now wherever you get your BBC

0:32

podcasts BBC

0:39

Sounds. Music, radio, podcasts.

0:41

Hello and welcome to More

0:44

or Less. Wherever there's a top

0:46

secret group chat about numbers, you

0:48

can bet that we're lurking unobserved

0:50

and taking notes. I'm Tim Harford.

0:52

This week we resolve last week's

0:55

low jeopardy cliffhanger about why British

0:57

houses are really old. We investigate

0:59

claims that the Office for National

1:01

Statistics have stuffed two trillion pounds

1:04

into a duffel bag and abscondered

1:06

to Brazil. We return to the

1:08

increasingly recondite topic of how many

1:11

days there are in length, but

1:13

first, last week the government announced

1:15

changes to the disability benefits system

1:17

which included cuts aimed at saving

1:20

five billion pounds a year. The

1:22

move was met with dismay by

1:24

some, including those on the left

1:26

of the Labour Party, such as

1:28

MP Diane Abbott. She appeared on

1:30

Radio 4's Today programme and argued

1:32

that there was another way to

1:34

deal with the financial pressures of

1:36

a rising disability benefits bill. I

1:38

would introduce the wealth tax. If

1:40

you brought in a wealth tax

1:43

of just 2% on people with

1:45

assets over 10 million pounds, that

1:47

would raise 24 billion a year.

1:49

That's what I would do. Loyal listeners

1:51

have been in touch asking us to

1:53

look into this figure, so we tracked

1:55

it down. It ultimately comes from the

1:58

Wealth Tax Commission, an independent report. written

2:00

in 2020 by academics and

2:02

experts led by Aaron Advani,

2:04

Emma Chamberlain and Andy Summers.

2:06

I wonder what had happened to

2:09

him. The report looked at whether

2:11

a wealth tax would be a

2:13

plausible way to pay for the

2:15

what-off cost of responding to the

2:17

pandemic. This 24 billion pound figure

2:20

is based on levying an annual

2:22

tax of 2% on any wealth

2:24

over 10 million pounds. The Wealth

2:26

Tax Commission didn't argue for this

2:28

rate or threshold, but the £24

2:30

billion is a fair extrapolation from

2:33

calculations the Commission made, so there

2:35

is some proper math behind it.

2:37

But what do we mean by wealth? Dr

2:39

Aaron Advani was one of the

2:41

commissioners of the report, as well as

2:43

being an economist and the director of

2:46

the Centre for the Analysis of Taxation.

2:48

One of the things we said... that

2:50

was crucial if you were going to

2:52

have a wealth tax was that you

2:55

treat all assets equally. That means you

2:57

are taxing houses, you are taxing business

2:59

wealth, that's what you hold, you're taxing

3:01

all of the full value of wealth.

3:04

So the kind of wealth tax envisaged

3:06

by Aaron Advani would encompass all forms

3:08

of wealth, no exemptions. And there is

3:10

a reason for that. Exemptions are kryptonite

3:13

for wealth taxes. The ultra-wealthy tend to

3:15

be well advised. And if one kind

3:17

of asset is excluded or taxed at

3:19

a lower rate, then they will put

3:22

all of their money into that. Say

3:24

that an exemption was made for farmland

3:26

or forestry. All of a sudden, you'd

3:29

see rich people buying forestry and farmland

3:31

and farmland. We are looking at you,

3:33

Mr. Clarkson. Classic BBC, there. Classic. Oh

3:35

yeah. Actually, this gratuitous celebrity reference is

3:38

making a point. It sounds easy not

3:40

to have exemptions, but as the protests

3:42

over farms and inheritance tax show, it

3:45

isn't easy, and this has consequences. So

3:47

when you look at other countries where

3:49

sometimes the revenue estimates have been a bit

3:51

disappointing and the money that comes in is

3:54

lower, you can see that one of the

3:56

biggest or the biggest reason for that is

3:58

that they all have been... up with

4:00

gaps in their wealth tax, certain

4:02

assets that aren't being taxed, and

4:04

then people naturally shift over to

4:06

those assets or find ways to

4:09

value those assets creatively as ways

4:11

of reducing the taxable wealth that

4:13

they have. We see this in the

4:15

real world. Many a wealth tax has

4:17

been brought low by the addition of

4:20

exemptions or special treatment. Dan Needle is

4:22

a former top tax lawyer. who now

4:24

runs a tax think tank, tax policy

4:27

associates. He thinks the international evidence shows

4:29

us that wealth taxes are never as

4:31

simple as the theory would have it.

4:33

There's no wealth tax in the world

4:36

that works like that. Why not? There

4:38

have always been exemptions, limitations,

4:40

restrictions, qualifications, as there are for

4:42

all taxes. And is that because

4:44

people always lobby or... Well, no,

4:47

I'm sure it's partly because people

4:49

always lobby, but is it because...

4:51

for some economic or legal reason

4:53

it's just impossible to levy a

4:56

wealth tax like that. Well, there's two ways to

4:58

put it, and you can pick the one you

5:00

prefer. The first one is that there will be

5:02

economic inefficiency or even injustice if

5:04

someone is taxed at a level

5:06

that means they have to dispose

5:08

of their business. The alternative way

5:10

to that is that people who

5:12

own large businesses are in an

5:14

excellent position to lobby and they

5:17

create exemptions for themselves. Whichever one

5:19

of those is true in a

5:21

way doesn't matter much because the

5:23

history has been that wealth taxes

5:25

have bloody great exceptions and so

5:27

they're very wealthy have ended up

5:29

not paying much and the mere

5:31

upper middle class if you like ends up

5:33

paying it. The international evidence

5:35

is indeed not hugely promising.

5:37

Back in 1990, there were

5:39

12 OECD countries that levied

5:42

annual wealth taxes. Today, it's

5:44

just three. France, for example,

5:46

introduced an annual wealth tax

5:48

but exempted business assets. It

5:50

ended up abolishing the tax

5:52

in 2018. I asked Aaron Advani

5:54

about the international evidence. I

5:56

think one kind of advantage

5:58

for us. as a sort of

6:01

second mover in this context, is that

6:03

other countries have built wealth taxes before,

6:05

and they've made mistakes before, and we

6:07

can see what the costs of those

6:09

mistakes are. So we can say, look,

6:12

Mr or Mrs Policymaker, if you are

6:14

in a world in which you're going

6:16

to go out there and build a

6:18

wealth tax, this is going to be

6:21

the cost of allowing some of those

6:23

gaps in the wealth tax, and at

6:25

some point, if you want one, you

6:27

have to build it properly, and if

6:29

you're not going to build it properly,

6:32

it's not going to build it properly,

6:34

it's not going to avoid paying that

6:36

tax. It's not worth doing. such as

6:38

spending so little time in the UK

6:40

that you are no longer eligible. The

6:43

wealth tax commission did look at international

6:45

evidence on how much revenue might be

6:47

lost to avoidance. If the tax rate

6:49

levied was 1%, they thought between 7

6:51

and 17% of the initial tax base

6:54

would be lost. It is tricky though,

6:56

international wealth taxes have tended to kick

6:58

in at relatively low thresholds, certainly when

7:00

compared to this proposed UK version. Much

7:03

of the recent discussion has centered around

7:05

the idea of whether an annual wealth

7:07

tax would work or not, but there

7:09

are other options. The government could, for

7:11

example, implement a one-off wealth tax, levied

7:14

just the once. Both Aaron Advani and

7:16

Dan Needle agree that that would face

7:18

fewer of the difficulties around avoidance that

7:20

an annual wealth tax would. As long

7:22

as it takes people by surprise, the

7:25

super-rich wouldn't be able to change their

7:27

behaviour. though of course this wouldn't give

7:29

you an ongoing source of income and

7:31

the super-rich might not believe the tax

7:34

would be a one-off and start thinking

7:36

of avoidance strategies anyway. Aaron spent a

7:38

long time looking at the evidence on

7:40

wealth taxes so what did he and

7:42

his colleagues end up recommending? So what

7:45

we said at the end of the

7:47

work that we did given that was

7:49

in the context of COVID was that

7:51

to pay for that one-off shock that

7:53

we'd had the best solution both in

7:56

the context of world taxes, but also

7:58

in the context of taxes more generally.

8:00

would have been a one-off wealth tax

8:02

rather than either an annual wealth tax

8:05

or rather than say a change in

8:07

income tax or national insurance contributions. We

8:09

separately said that if you're in the

8:11

space of thinking about annual wealth taxes,

8:13

certainly we would not recommend an annual

8:16

wealth tax starting at a low threshold,

8:18

meaning covering a large share of the

8:20

population. We have other taxes on wealth

8:22

in this country like capital gains tax

8:24

that don't work very well and we

8:27

thought it'd be much easier and much

8:29

more sensible to fix those. But we

8:31

also said if you have a desire

8:33

to get revenue, specifically from the very

8:35

wealthiest, if that was your political goal,

8:38

then you could operate an annual wealth

8:40

tax. It is possible to make it

8:42

work. You should be aware that it's

8:44

not trivial, but it is doable. Rather

8:47

than a new wealth tax, Dan Needle

8:49

is in favour of reforming the taxes,

8:51

the government already levies on wealth. So

8:53

yes, we could fix all our rather

8:55

broken land taxes, stamped duty council tax

8:58

business rates, we could stop people converting

9:00

income tax debt. 45% of the top

9:02

rate, into capital gains, taxed at 24%,

9:04

we could stop the widespread avoidance of

9:06

inheritance tax by the very wealthy, and

9:09

these problems are known, and if there

9:11

was the political will to tax wealth

9:13

more effectively, we could do it. But

9:15

you don't need a quote-unquote wealth tax

9:18

to do that. Our thanks to Dr

9:20

Aaron Advani and Dan Needle. Dan is

9:22

presenting a new series on Radio 4

9:24

called Untaxing, about how tax has shaped

9:26

the world around us. It's on at

9:29

145 every day next week. You're listening

9:31

to more or less. Cometh-the-hour,

9:36

cometh the man, last week,

9:39

Kier's stoma was defending the

9:41

government's economic record at Prime

9:43

Minister's questions, which, as you

9:46

might expect, included a fair

9:48

bit of attacking the Conservatives

9:50

record. That's after only eight

9:53

months of the 14 years

9:55

of absolute failure. What are

9:57

you doing? Interest rates, at

10:00

11%? Kierstama has fallen into

10:02

a time slip and found

10:04

himself in the early 90s.

10:07

That is right kids, crack

10:09

out that fancy new CD

10:11

player in your Ford Fiesta.

10:14

We are going back to

10:16

1991. The last time interest

10:18

rates were at that level.

10:21

So unless Kier has a

10:23

long-standing grudge against John Major,

10:25

we presume that he meant

10:27

to say, inflation. at 11%

10:30

which it did hit in

10:32

October 2022. Now we might

10:34

have let this one go

10:37

as a slip of the

10:39

tongue. Except the Labour Minister,

10:41

Sima Malhotra, tweeted this clip

10:44

and repeated the claim that

10:46

interest rates had hit 11%

10:48

under the recent Conservative government,

10:51

which of course they didn't.

10:55

The question is, what is old?

10:57

Is the word old being used

10:59

in a pejorative sense? Old houses

11:02

can be better than new ones.

11:04

Last week, loyal listener Colin wanted

11:06

us to investigate the claim that

11:09

the UK has the oldest housing

11:11

stock in Europe and to explain

11:13

whether that was actually a bad

11:16

thing. Great question, but we only

11:18

had time for the lowest jeopardy

11:20

cliffhanger in broadcasting history. But now

11:22

we are back with a full

11:25

answer for Colin. Yes, we do

11:27

have the oldest housing stock in

11:29

Europe and we know that because

11:32

almost 50 years we've been monitoring

11:34

the housing stock across the country.

11:36

This is Jane Goddard, the managing

11:38

director of the Building Performance Services

11:41

part of BRE, that is the

11:43

Building Research Establishment, which conducts the

11:45

Housing Survey for England. They're also

11:48

involved with surveys in Wales, Scotland

11:50

and Northern Ireland. And healthily there

11:52

are similar surveys carried out across

11:54

Europe. The results are in. The

11:57

proportion of homes built before 1946.

11:59

So more than 80 years ago.

12:01

United Kingdom 38% EU average 22%

12:04

The two countries in the EU

12:06

whose housing is similarly old are

12:08

Belgium and Denmark The lowest on

12:11

the table are Greece at 8%

12:13

and Cyprus at 3% and France

12:15

Germany and Italy and Italy and

12:17

all between 20 and 30% So

12:20

why is the UK's housing stock

12:22

so much older? Principally, it was

12:24

the Industrial Revolution, which saw a

12:27

lot of people moving from rural

12:29

areas to urban areas, and that's

12:31

why we see so many Victorian

12:33

houses and we see so many

12:36

terrorist houses, workers' cottages, and that

12:38

was really the proliferation of housing

12:40

in this country. the Industrial Revolution

12:43

got underway sooner in the UK

12:45

than in other European countries. And

12:47

this proliferation of terrorist houses accounts

12:49

for much of our oldest housing

12:52

stock today. Q. Classic BBC Documentary.

12:54

The bylaws made the terrorist Britain's

12:56

new model home. And over the

12:59

course of the 19th century, a

13:01

staggering 5 million were built. There

13:03

are around 750,000 homes today, which

13:05

were built before 1850, but they

13:08

make up only about 3% of

13:10

the UK's 25 million homes. It

13:12

was the rows and rows of

13:15

terraced houses which continued to be

13:17

built into the 20th century, which

13:19

form a big chunk of the

13:22

homes which are over a century

13:24

old. The vast majority are still

13:26

with us today. It's hard to

13:28

get consensus to replace them. If

13:31

you wanted to pull down a

13:33

street of terraces, for example, and

13:35

I myself live in a terraced

13:38

house, you would have to get

13:40

permission from every single person in

13:42

that street in order to bring

13:44

that down and do something different

13:47

with the housing. Anyway, even if

13:49

we could get consensus, that consensus

13:51

might well be, let's go. Keep

13:54

them. Well, terraces were popular and

13:56

still are. And we are very

13:58

attached to our terrorist housing. After

14:00

the First World War, Britain embarked

14:03

on a new wave of building.

14:05

This was the era of the

14:07

semi-detached house. New accommodation under ideal

14:10

conditions has already been provided for

14:12

about 6,000 slum dwellers, taken from

14:14

slum properties like these, and semi-detached

14:17

houses like these. The semi-detached house

14:19

and the terrorist house are the

14:21

most common property types in the

14:23

UK. Would you believe that these

14:26

houses are only a mile or

14:28

two from the centre of Birmingham?

14:30

No wonder the workers feel as

14:33

if they had been reborn? Another

14:35

40% of our current housing stock

14:37

was built between 1946 and 1980.

14:39

This clip is from a new

14:42

estate under construction in the 1950s.

14:44

Built in 12 weeks for less

14:46

than a thousand pounds each, these

14:49

houses seem one answer to the

14:51

housing drive. Gosh, but this brief

14:53

history of British house building, and

14:55

kitchen downstairs, they have three bedrooms

14:58

upstairs. The women will find their

15:00

work has been made as simple

15:02

as possible. That's because when he

15:05

made the plans, architect Mr. Appleton

15:07

asked Housewife Mrs. Appleton for suggestions.

15:09

Gosh, but this brief history of

15:11

British house building starts to run

15:14

thin from about 1970. House building

15:16

rates, already below those of the

15:18

inter-war years, fell dramatically in the

15:21

1970s, and despite the occasional micro

15:23

boom, they have been continuing to

15:25

fall ever since. Fundamentally, that is

15:28

why the average house is so

15:30

old. Not because we have lots

15:32

of old houses, but because we

15:34

don't have many new ones. The

15:37

situation in many Western European countries

15:39

is different. Most of them have

15:41

built a lot more since the

15:44

war than the UK has. One

15:46

exception, Belgium, has the same old

15:48

housing stock as the UK does.

15:50

But as loyal listener Colin asks,

15:53

why does this matter? A lot

15:55

of old housing is much loved.

15:57

There are two reasons. The first

16:00

is that old... is often expensive

16:02

to heat. Bad for your pocketbook

16:04

and bad for the planet and

16:06

retrofitting to improve insulation can also

16:09

be difficult and expensive. Old houses

16:11

can also underperform in other ways,

16:13

for example accessibility for elderly or

16:16

disabled people. The second reason is

16:18

not that old housing is a

16:20

problem, but that it's a symptom.

16:23

Our housing stock is old on

16:25

average because we're not building many

16:27

new homes and we haven't done

16:29

for the last 50 years. And

16:32

because we're not building many new

16:34

homes, people can't afford a place

16:36

to live. As many of you

16:39

will have heard, the government has

16:41

announced a new drive to build

16:43

one and a half million new

16:45

homes over the course of this

16:48

Parliament. If achieved, will this make

16:50

a huge difference to our overall

16:52

housing stock? In short, no. As

16:55

we... already have something in the

16:57

order of 80% of the housing

16:59

stock that will still be here

17:01

in 2050, 1.5 million homes is

17:04

a relatively small increase in that

17:06

number. In other words, the best

17:08

time to modernize your housing stock

17:11

was 50 years ago. The second

17:13

best time is now. Don't expect

17:15

the UK's housing stock to be

17:17

modernised overnight. I'm

17:24

Zing Singh and I'm Simon Jack and

17:26

together we host Good Bad billionaire the

17:28

podcast exploring the lives of some of

17:30

the world's richest people in the new

17:32

season We're setting our sights on some

17:34

big names. Yep LeBron James and Martha

17:36

Stewart to name just a few and

17:38

as always Simon and I are trying

17:40

to decide whether we think they're good

17:42

bad or just another billionaire that's good

17:44

bad billionaire from the BBC world service

17:47

Listen now wherever you get your BBC

17:49

podcasts We

17:56

heard last week about the goings-on

17:58

at the Office for National... statistics

18:01

and how their incredibly important labour

18:03

force survey has gone quite wrong.

18:05

Well not content with that, the

18:07

telegraph seemed to be accusing them

18:09

of accounting misdeeds to make Bernie

18:12

Madoff, Sam Bankman freed and the

18:14

Enron team look like small-time operators.

18:16

Britain's left two trillion pounds worse

18:18

off. What have you done? And

18:21

to which Tropical Paradise have you

18:23

run off with the money? For

18:25

two trillion pounds you are going

18:27

to need a very big suitcase.

18:29

The telegraph story is based on

18:32

a report from the Institute for

18:34

Fiscal Studies, co-written by senior economist

18:36

Stuart Adam. So how did the

18:38

OSN managed to pull off this

18:41

massive heist? Well fortunately accounting changes

18:43

can't actually make us worse off.

18:45

What's happened is that the OSN,

18:47

the Office for National Statistics, has

18:49

revised... how well off they thought

18:52

we already were. So it's not

18:54

actually changing anyone's wealth, but it's

18:56

changing its measure of people's wealth.

18:58

Few. So no individual Britain is

19:01

actually worse off in reality. It's

19:03

just that the OSN's estimate of

19:05

how much we collectively have has

19:07

fallen. The missing two trillion pounds

19:09

is the result of a change

19:12

in the way the OSN's estimates

19:14

the value of people's pensions. This

19:16

is combined with attempts to put

19:18

a value on other things, such

19:21

as houses, to work out how

19:23

much wealth we own between us.

19:25

And the O&S also estimates who

19:27

owns what, giving a wealth distribution

19:29

and an estimate for wealth inequality

19:32

in the UK. Now for a

19:34

lot of people, one of their

19:36

biggest assets is their pension, which

19:38

might be a big pot of

19:41

cash, but it might also be

19:43

an income from an annuity or

19:45

a final salary pension. So how

19:47

to value that? The ONS recently

19:49

changed its approach and to show

19:52

the nation's finest geeks there working

19:54

has published estimates using the new

19:56

methodology and data. from 2018 to

19:58

2020. The overall effect of this

20:01

is that they estimate that pension

20:03

wealth is over a third lower

20:05

than they previously thought and because

20:07

pensions are such a big part

20:09

of people's overall wealth that means

20:12

that aggregate household wealth for Britain

20:14

as a whole is 14% lower

20:16

than they previously thought. It's a

20:18

big shift in our estimated wealth

20:21

but the IFS thinks there's a

20:23

mistake in the new methodology. The

20:25

biggest change the INS has made

20:27

is to change the way in

20:29

which it converts future pension income

20:32

into today's terms. This question doesn't

20:34

have an easy answer and figuring

20:36

it out involves a few assumptions.

20:38

So if I've got a pension

20:41

that pays me so many thousand

20:43

pounds a year from now until

20:45

I die, what's the value of

20:47

that today? And one way you

20:49

might go about answering that is

20:52

to say, well, how much would

20:54

I need to invest to get

20:56

the same annual income as I

20:58

get from this pension? And the

21:01

usual way you would go about

21:03

that is to use an interest

21:05

rate, because if interest rates are

21:07

high, then I don't need very

21:09

much money now to generate more

21:12

income in future. Whereas if interest

21:14

rates are low, I can't get

21:16

very much return on my savings.

21:18

So what we do is we

21:21

use an interest rate to convert

21:23

that future stream of income into

21:25

a lump-sum value today. So if

21:27

you're getting a thousand pounds a

21:29

year as a pension, you'd need

21:32

a hundred thousand pounds in the

21:34

bank to earn that if interest

21:36

rates were 1%. If they were

21:38

5%, then you'd only need 20,000

21:41

pounds. So we might say that

21:43

your 1,000 pound a year pension

21:45

is worth either 100,000 pounds or

21:47

20,000 pounds, depending on the interest

21:49

rate. Now for a nation's spanning

21:52

estimate of wealth like this, there

21:54

is plenty of debate to be

21:56

had. around precisely what interest rate

21:58

you would use to calculate the

22:01

value of these pensions. The ONS,

22:03

after a big review and lots

22:05

of expert advice, went down a

22:07

different path. It's converting future income

22:09

into today's terms, not using an

22:12

interest rate at all, but using

22:14

essentially a forecast of the rate

22:16

of GDP growth, the rate at

22:18

which national income can grow. and

22:21

I can't see any reason why

22:23

the rate of GDP growth should

22:25

be relevant to valuing future pension

22:27

income in today's terms. You should

22:29

be using a market interest rate

22:32

of some sort. The GDP growth

22:34

rate is related to interest rates

22:36

over the very long term, but

22:38

in the short term they can

22:41

be pretty far apart. For the

22:43

time period the ONS looked at,

22:45

2018-2020, interest rates were high and

22:47

GDP growth was low. So changing

22:49

the methodology made a big difference,

22:52

reducing the estimated value. By over

22:54

two trillion pounds across the population

22:56

as a whole, relative to using

22:58

market interest rates. Perhaps the big

23:01

takeaway here is that when you

23:03

see estimates of the UK's wealth

23:05

distribution in the news, you need

23:07

to remember that this... Big debate

23:09

is going on in the background.

23:12

The number changes a lot, depending

23:14

on the ONS methodology, and that

23:16

means the political argument may change

23:18

too, but one thing that hasn't

23:21

changed is your pension. Our thanks

23:23

to Stuart Adam from the Institute

23:25

for Fiscal Studies. While we're talking

23:27

about the O&S, they have also

23:29

recently announced that they're pausing the

23:32

publication of more statistics. The producer

23:34

price index and the services producer

23:36

price indices. These track the inflation

23:38

that's faced by producers of goods

23:41

and services, and they're used in

23:43

the calculations for GDP, gross domestic

23:45

product. Oh, at least GDP numbers

23:47

aren't being used calculating any other

23:49

stats, eh? We are still keen

23:52

to talk to the ONS and

23:54

we are available for them to

23:56

reach us via phone, email or

23:58

tinder. In

24:03

our first episode of the series,

24:05

which is available to download as

24:07

a podcast, we did a short,

24:09

playful item about Lent, and how

24:11

it's not actually 40 days long

24:13

as we were led to believe,

24:16

but 46, because Sundays aren't counted.

24:18

Lent is still 40 days, ish.

24:20

We have received a lot of

24:22

emails about this. So like Christ

24:24

with Lazarus, we are raising this

24:26

item back from the dead to

24:28

discuss it further, and with me

24:30

is our biblical numbers correspondent. Lizzy

24:32

McNeil. Hello, Lizzy. Hi Tim. Well,

24:34

let's take it back to the

24:36

start. So, as we all know,

24:39

Lent is celebrated to commemorate Jesus

24:41

going to the wilderness for 40

24:43

days and nights, where he fasted

24:45

and spent a lot of time

24:47

resisting temptation. But the length of

24:49

Lent has changed throughout the centuries.

24:51

In the earlier days of Christianity,

24:53

there was huge debate about how

24:55

long Lent was. As Saint Arrinius

24:57

wrote to Pope Saint Victor I

24:59

in the third century A. The

25:01

dispute is not only about the

25:04

day, but also about the actual

25:06

character of the fast. Some think

25:08

that they ought to fast for

25:10

one day, some for two, others

25:12

for still more. Some make their

25:14

day last 40 hours on end.

25:16

Such variation in the observance did

25:18

not originate in our own day,

25:20

but very much earlier in the

25:22

time of our forefathers. This was

25:24

a problem that was eventually tackled

25:27

by the Council of Nicea in

25:29

325 AD, which is probably everyone's

25:31

second favourite council of Elrod. The

25:33

Council of Elrod. Exactly. Anyway, this

25:35

is when Lent was first given

25:37

its 40-day time frame. However, they

25:39

didn't fast on Sundays. But did

25:41

include Sundays in their count, so

25:43

they only fasted for 34 out

25:45

of the 40 days. Now eventually

25:47

the church split with two distinct

25:50

branches, east and west, which led

25:52

to even more variation. In Jerusalem,

25:54

for instance, people fasted for 40

25:56

days, Monday through Friday, but not

25:58

on Saturday or Sunday, meaning Lent

26:00

was a period of 8. weeks.

26:02

In Rome and the West people

26:04

fast Monday through Saturday making their

26:06

period of length last for six

26:08

weeks. If you're Ethiopian the great

26:10

length lasts for 55 days. In

26:13

Eastern Orthodoxy lent is 40 days

26:15

and includes Sundays. Adding to the

26:17

confusion they're lent also generally starts

26:19

at a different time to Western

26:21

churches as they use the Julian

26:23

calendar rather than the Gregorian. So,

26:25

Lenters lasted one day, three days,

26:27

40 days, 46 days, or 55

26:29

days, depending where you are in

26:31

history, the world, and which denomination

26:33

you follow. Right. So, some people

26:36

include Sundays, some don't include Sundays,

26:38

some don't include Saturdays, there's a

26:40

lot going on, but what about

26:42

our comments about the number 40

26:44

actually being used in the Bible

26:46

to mean quite a lot? I'm

26:48

team. loans. Yeah, I consulted a

26:50

proper expert on this. Alison Salverson,

26:52

professor of early Judaism and Christianity

26:54

at the University of Oxford and

26:56

the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and

26:59

Jewish Studies. She has somewhat ironically

27:01

spent the last 40 years studying

27:03

these religious texts, so it's come

27:05

across the number 40 quite a

27:07

bit. It occurs in the Hebrew

27:09

Bible in particularly the Old Testament

27:11

for Christians and it's highly symbolic.

27:13

She agreed that 40 is not

27:15

a literal number. and it means

27:17

a sort of significant length of

27:19

time usually or a significant number

27:22

but not usually the kind of

27:24

literal sense. So 40 days does

27:26

not necessarily mean almost six weeks

27:28

and 40 years does not necessarily

27:30

mean. exactly 40. It takes on

27:32

a kind of symbolic and elusive

27:34

value because it's used particularly of

27:36

Moses on going up to Sinai

27:38

and staying there talking to God

27:40

for 40 days and 40 nights

27:42

and not eating or drinking which

27:45

I think is very significant for

27:47

the gospel passage. It's also used

27:49

of Elijah's journey to Mount Horib

27:51

to meet with God as well

27:53

and that's supposed to have taken

27:55

40 days and 40 nights. And

27:57

so when it's used in the

27:59

New Testament, I think it's highly

28:01

likely that the writers were very

28:03

conscious of making a link with

28:05

both Moses and Elijah, who were

28:07

very significant figures for Jews in

28:10

the first century of the common

28:12

era. And so when it says

28:14

that Jesus was in the wilderness

28:16

for 40 days, it's not an

28:18

exact number. It is a round

28:20

figure, but it also points very

28:22

clearly to the episodes of Moses

28:24

and Elijah and the Hebrew Bible

28:26

meeting with God in the wilderness

28:28

in a lonely place and not

28:30

eating and drinking. So that is

28:33

what we're meant to be thinking

28:35

of roles and some kind of

28:37

countdown from 40. Thank you Lizzy

28:39

and thanks to Professor Alison Salverson

28:41

and thanks also to everyone who

28:43

wrote in. I hope we have

28:45

answered your queries. I feel more

28:47

enlightened. And that's all we have

28:49

time for this week, but we

28:51

will be back next week with

28:53

a triple-decker sandwich of statistical news

28:56

and comment. Something like that anyway.

28:58

Please keep your questions and your

29:00

comments coming in to more or

29:02

less, BBC.co. UK. UK. And until

29:04

next week, goodbye. More

29:08

or less was presented by me,

29:10

Tim Harford. The producer was Tom

29:12

Coles, with Nathan Gower, Charlen Macdonald

29:14

and Lizzy McNeil. Our production coordinator

29:17

was Gemma Ashman. The programme was

29:19

recorded and mixed by Gareth Jones,

29:21

and our editor is Richard Varden.

29:23

Hi, I'm Isy Judd. Have you

29:26

actually breathed properly yet today? If

29:28

things are a bit hectic at

29:30

the moment, if you're struggling to

29:32

switch off from work... or if

29:35

you're generally just feeling a bit

29:37

stuck in life, I've got just

29:39

the thing for you. Join me

29:41

for the Music and Meditation podcast

29:44

on BBC Sounds and Radio 3

29:46

Unwind. It's a place where we

29:48

press balls with the help of

29:50

some inspirational guests, wonderful guided meditations

29:53

and stunning music. Honestly, I think

29:55

you'll love it, so why not

29:57

give it a go? And

30:19

as always, Simon and I

30:22

are trying to decide whether we

30:24

think they're good, bad or

30:26

just another billionaire. That's good, bad

30:28

billionaire from the BBC World

30:30

Service. Listen now wherever you get

30:32

your BBC podcasts.