2 comments on “Wondrous!

  1. But subject to peer review

    Unlike your stuff

    Of which no doubt we will see more in 2008

    Tim adds: Peer review Richard? This?
    http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Documents/TaxCodeofConductShort.pdf
    Can you let us know which journal this appeared in? What their review policies are? Whether articles published in said academic journal are in fact subject to peer review?

    Or by peer review do you mean just review by your peers, something rather different?

    As to my drawing on the research of others. This paper:

    http://users.ox.ac.uk/~mast1732/RePEc/pdf/WP0707.pdf

    No, I can’t see that it was subject to peer review in the scientific sense, simply a paper presented at a conference. But it does present empirical evidence of the impact of corporation tax, which was the basis of my article here.

    http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/tax-and-economy/why-we-should-abolish-corporation-tax-20071102422/

    The point being that you, Richard Murphy, rejected the whole idea of tax incidence thusly:

    “Yes he knows what is claimed

    And he knows it is wrong

    It is myth that works on the blackborad and not in practice

    In truth it’s promulgated simply to make the wealthiest wealthier

    But I guess that is your aim”

    Please do explain to us all why we should accept your word that it is wrong, as against the considered opinion (with evidence) of three Oxford University academics.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.