Most amusing from Ritchie

The veteran tax justice campaigner Richard Murphy told me that the practice of individuals pretending that they were companies caused \”a massive leakage of tax revenue\” – made up by the poor saps who pay at the full rate. \”They have all the tax advantages of a company without the obligation to tell the world what they are doing, with the privilege society has granted them.\”

And here is the article showing you how to do this, by one Richard Murphy.

Now Ritchie tells us that this was penned in 2003 to expose the practice, to make people aware so that it would be stopped. And it is true that the company that Ritchie was using to do exactly this stopped trading in 2003.

At which point he opened another one and carried on doing it until at least 2007.

Such terrible, heinous, tax abuse, eh?

9 comments on “Most amusing from Ritchie

  1. The silence from UKUncut or Occupy on Ken Livingstone’s tax affairs has been deafening.

  2. So does your vaunted libertarianism not allow people to change direction, or understand a different viewpoint? Or do they only have to agree with your tosspot inventions based on twats and a blackboard.

    And, yes, because Murphy knew how to get around those tax laws, then you would expect him to be qualified to campaign for the closing of loopholes.

    No, anything, anyone says that you don’t agree with (usually women, the nhs and murphy) get ad hominem bitchery and all your fat and loathsome possie all giggle. And probably have a wank too, afterwards.

  3. Arnald,

    If RM wrote that article in 2003 to expose the practice of operating through a limited company, how come he himself then continued to do exactly that for at least another four years? Either he didn’t write that article for that purpose at all, in which case he is a liar, or he did, in which case he is a hypocrite.

    Oh, and while we are on the subject of “ad hominem bitchery”, here is part of a comment placed on my own blog the other day:

    “….You can’t read accounts, do not understand offshore and do not seem to realise 2008 happend. You also do not seem to understand taxing harmful behaviour is an important part of tax policy. But I guess that’s the problem of being an ex banker. You may think the time for remorse is over: society does not.”

    The author of that comment? One Richard Murphy – the master of ad hominem attacks. The last remark is pure spite: Murphy has attributed to me a comment made by Bob Diamond to the Treasury Select Committee. I have never, ever, said any such thing.

    I could provide many, many other examples of Murphy “playing the man not the ball”. I’ve said before that my main issue with Murphy is not his ideas, but his behaviour. There is never any justification for being rude and dismissive to people who point out your errors or who simply don’t agree with you.

  4. Just further proof that Murphy is a twat. As an independent IT contractor, I have little choice but to operate as a limited company. I don’t know how that can be classed as avoiding tax, seeing as how I have to pay corporation tax on my profits, pay PAYE on the salary I draw and pay both employers and employees NIC.

    As a salaried employee I would earn a whole lot less than as a contractor but the tax bill is pretty much the same. In addition, I have no pension rights, no holiday or sick pay rights and when I don’t work, I don’t get paid. Perhaps Murphy should have a word with Gordon Brown, after it was him and that bloody awful Primarolo woman that drew up the tax legislation to allow contractors to operate as limited companies.

  5. Henry,

    We had IT contractors working through limited companies in the 1980s, which long predates Gordon Brown. I presume therefore you are referrring to IR35, which was part of the Finance Act 2000 during Brown’s chancellorship. IR35 didn’t “allow contractors to operate as limited companies”, it attempted to limit the types of business that could legitimately be operated through a limited company. And most people would agree that it is a massive failure in this respect, since HMRC have lost the majority of cases brought under this legislation.

  6. Frances,

    I wasn’t living here in the 1980;s so am only able to comment from my own personal experience. I started contracting in 1994 and was registered as self-employed. This continued until 1996 when I took salaried employment. In 2008 I started contracting again and for a few months used an umbrella company until that company advised that “due to legislation” I would have to operate as a limited company.

    When I compare with other contractors I know that still operate through so-called umbrella companies, I am marginally better off.

    I agree that IR35 is the most pernicious piece of tax legislation enacted by Brown – long may he rot.

  7. Henry,

    I’m surprised you were able to work on a self-employed basis. Even in the 1990s the vast majority of companies and agencies required contractors to operate either through their own company or through an umbrella company. I did contract work for much of the 1990s and had my own limited company.

Leave a Reply

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