Ritchie changes his mind!

There\’s been something nagging me about R. Murphy\’s latest little essay for the TUC. It doesn\’t seem to mention his last little essay for the TUC.

Back in November he said that there should be a 0.05% tax on all interbank and CHAPS transfers.

I was among those who started shouting that he\’s just closed down the interbank markets in their entirety. Of course, I was told not to be silly, nothing of the sort and anyway, what\’s the point of interbank markets and Worstall, you eat boiled babies, don\’t you, yes, don\’t you!

Then there\’s his new report for the TUC about a financial transactions tax.

And I cannot find anywhere in it that tax on cash/bank transfers.

Which leaves us with a number of possible answers to the question why not?

My two favourites are, at present, that he\’s simply forgotten all about it or that an adult read the first report and promptly demanded that he stop being so silly.

I\’d much prefer it to be the latter: it would indicate that there is indeed an adult overseeing his reports, something hitherto unsuspected.

5 comments on “Ritchie changes his mind!

  1. I just generally assume that the amount of brain damage he has suffered renders each and every word out of hist mouth a nonsense. Consistency from Murphy is asking too much.

  2. What is the business of the TUC using members’ money to wade into the subject of the taxing of banks anyway?

    I’d have thought every penny had to be spent consistently with the TUC’s own objects, found here http://www.tuc.org.uk/congress/tuc-16855-f0.cfm – as follows:

    Rule 2
    Objects
    (a) The objects of the Congress shall be:

    To do anything to promote the interests of all or any of its affiliated organisations or anything beneficial to the interests of past and present individual members of such organisations.

    To promote equality for all and to eliminate all forms of harassment, prejudice and unfair discrimination, both within its own structures and through all its activities, including its employment practices.

    Generally to improve the economic or social conditions of workers in all parts of the world and to render them assistance whether or not such workers are employed or have ceased to be employed.

    To affiliate to or subscribe to or to assist any other organisation having objects similar to those of the Congress.

    To assist in the complete organisation of all workers eligible for membership of its affiliated organisations and subject as hereinafter set forth in these Rules to assist in settling disputes between the members of such organisations and their employers or between such organisations and their members or between the organisations themselves.

    In pursuance of these general objects, and in accordance with particular decisions that Congress may make from time to time, Congress may do or authorise to be done all such acts and things as it considers necessary for the furtherance of those objects.

    (b) In the interpretation of the above objects the General Council shall have complete discretion subject only to the power of the annual Congress to revise their decisions.

    Where does commissioning for a study on taxes on banks fit into either the letter or spirit of any of these?

    Ritchie likes to rail against others who accept lucre in breach of the spirit of the rules, but seems happy enough to accept the dosh himself in breach of the spirit AND the letter of his sponsor’s own objects!

    I really don’t mind people joining trade unions if they want to, but they are entitled to expect their contributions to be dealt with according to the rules.

  3. Given the general standard of Ritchie’s output, it’s not going to be an actual adult, is it? I don’t suppose it would even qualify as a ‘Modern Apprenticeship’.

    Pathways to Work, possibly, for somebody with congenital economic innumeracy?

  4. Surreptitious Evil:

    Speaking of economic innumeracy, I’ve a hunch there’s some of the ordinary kind in the air, whether or not congenital.

    Hardly seems likely for a loud tax-the-shit-out-of-’em type to ask for a “0.05%” (1/20th of 1%)
    nibble–of anything.

  5. Gene,

    Perhaps it wasn’t his idea. But it’s not like out current bunch of statist imbeciles to float something out via one of their ‘useful idiots’ to see if it gains traction with enough of the voting populace before coming out with a vaguely thought through version.

    But maybe I’m just underestimating Ritchie’s effectiveness for his employer – he’s come up with something that sounds completely harmless that will actually wreak a large part of the modern economy. Seems right up the TUC’s street.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.