Ritchie\’s looking for more handouts

And I candidly think that the proposals to increase consultation are anti-democratic and will result in significant bias in UK tax legislation. There are three reasons. First, to be consulted you need to be have the time available to take part without being paid. Only the rich and their agents can do that.

It would appear that £35k a year from the Joseph Rowntree peeps just isn\’t enough to keep a retired accountant in the style to which he wishes to become accustomed:

First, if there is to be consultation then it must be broadly representative and positively seek to be so. If necessary that means that payment must be made to those taking part. Second, parliament must have resources to commission its own reviews of legislation.

So Ritchie should be paid your and my money so as to inflict upon us his ideas of how he can take more of your and my money?

And note that second little bit, resources to commission……what this means is that Caroline Lucas and Chuka Umunna should be able to shovel even more of our tax money Ritchie\’s way.

Me, I suggest we reinvigorate that age old difference between \”making a living\” and \”public service\”. Otherwise known as \”if you want to try and inflict your prejudices upon us, do it on your own dime matey\”.

There is an alternative: Ritchie could become a parliamentary aide to one of those who like the cut of his jib. There are allowances for such things.

Although, it does have to be said, the screw is a great deal worse than what a retired accountant from Wandsworth might feel is fitting for one of his eminence.

10 comments on “Ritchie\’s looking for more handouts

  1. it always starts with the thought of how much more juice we can extract from the tax-payers. wouldn’t it be refreshing if someone just for once started from the premise of examining what the state really needs to spend and then cuts its coat accordingly?

  2. My theory for some while has been that Murphy’s main motivation is how much dough he can make out of all this.
    35 grand from Rowntrees, another wodge from the unions, bit from the Graun, appearance money from the Beeb….it’s all mounting up. Then it’s seats on this panel, place on that committee & if his beloved Labour Party get back in, who knows…..Lord Murphy of Norwich?

  3. Yes, I think you can trace his development from concerned campaigner to paid rentaquote through his writing.

    The quantity has increased, but the quality has dropped.

    He’s covering a much broader range of issues, but he doesn’t have any real expertise in most of them.

    He used to write about fairly technical tax things, from the point of view of ‘fairness’ and stopping tax abuse. But now he’s getting money from the public sector unions he’s writing much more from the stance of increasing total tax revenues so that the State can employ more people.

    He’s shifted from how tax is collected to how much tax is collected.

  4. In a sense the model’s la Toynbee, albeit via a different route. Spokesperson for the bleating classes. They’ll be alternating for a seat on Question Time before long. As a ‘tax expert’ of course in the same way as Pol’s always billed as a ‘journalist’.

  5. yeah it;’s all about how much tax we can squeeze out…never mind the fact that our society is chavved out, we just want to ensure that every fat chavette has a tramp-stamp on the NHS

  6. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is a hallmark of politicians. Murphy seems to like the ‘robbing Peter’ bit, but Paul can get stuffed.

  7. But Ritchie’s a successful entrepreneur who has employed 1000s of people, he can plenty afford to do this for free out of his own generosity during his retirement, surely?

  8. to be consulted you need to be have the time available to take part without being paid. Only the rich and their agents can do that.

    Murphy seems to have a lot of time, therefore he must be of “the rich and their agents”, therefore he is contributing to bias.

  9. “The quantity has increased, but the quality has dropped.”

    Actually, the quality of Murphy’s writing has remained remarkably consistent over time…

    “He’s covering a much broader range of issues, but he doesn’t have any real expertise in most of them.”

    And he doesn’t have any expertise in the original issues he addressed, either.

    “He used to write about fairly technical tax things, from the point of view of ‘fairness’ and stopping tax abuse.”

    That’s not true, technically. Murphy has never shown the slightest understanding of the differences between tax avoidance and tax evasion, which renders any attempt at address such issues as “fairness” and “tax abuse” meaningless.

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.