41 comments on “Ritchie on tax avoidance

  1. Ah, yes, of course. Tax law is never debated in Parliament, never voted on. Nope, it’s written by a secret cabal of evil capitalists (are they Illuminati? Bilderbergers? Adherents of the Abrahamic faith? At least some of them _must_ be Masons …) and then snuck in to Hansard via their corrupt placemen in the Parliamentary Draftsman’s Office.

  2. a secret cabal of evil capitalists (are they Illuminati? Bilderbergers? Adherents of the Abrahamic faith? At least some of them _must_ be Masons

    What happened to the Rosicrucians and the Templars? Are they out of fashion now? And as for the Catholics; their conspiracy brand has really fallen since the reign of Elizabeth I.

    (according to David Icke, it’s the lizards of course. Off topic a little but if you were going to denounce people as secret lizards then I get why you’d choose George Bush and the Queen – and the Rothschilds, it’s not a conpsiracy unless it has some Jews – but what’s his problem with Kris Kristofferson?)

    So you’re in favour of having tax law dictated by unaccountable companies for their own interest?

    There’s a good argument – I think Simon Raven expounds it in Alms For Oblivion that if you have to choose between the venal and the pious, you should always choose the venal. Because they’re not opposed to you having what you want as long as they get what they want first. But the pious are actively opposed to you getting what you want because they think it’s bad for you.. In other words, thinking about it, probably yes.

  3. in the interests of clarity and avoidance of accidental anti-semitism, that should probably read “it’s not a mental conspiracy theory”.

  4. No, it’s not a conspiracy, thickoes, because we all know that it happens, and they boast about it.

    It’s not any point about being pious, it’s about accountability.

    People go on at length, here, about how ‘venal’ and ‘hypocritical’ politicians are; well attach the same discrimination about business.

    Oh you can’t because you’re stupid.

  5. Oh1 the cross Arnald has to bear – the one illuminated intellect in a sea of thickos. Between 1997 and 2010 we had one of the most stringent and intrusive financial regulatory regimes ever – and look where that got us.

  6. Kris Kristofferson was a Rhodes Scholar, anyone who’s seen “The Guard” with Brendan Gleeson would know that. Perhaps Rhodes Scholars are being groomed for the Illuminati.

  7. I’m fully in agreement with Arnald. In fact we should take his principle further. Teachers should be kept out of consultations about education. Health professionals out of the NHS . Socialists out of anything.
    He’s not as daft as he sounds, that Arnald.

  8. People go on at length, here, about how ‘venal’ and ‘hypocritical’ politicians are;

    not me, chum. I prefer them to be the former – for reasons outlined above – and expect the latter. In any case, hypocrisy is only a sin to the morally relative.

    And for one as enlightened as you, it seems to come as a constant surprise that the primary purpose of business is ‘making money.’

  9. Peel back the faux morality and Arnald really is nothing more than a little ball of hate, isn’t he?

  10. given that “these firms” employ or are owned by most of the people in the country who are actually able to understand the tax laws, then whom is left to consult?

  11. The nly barrier to entry is knowledge of the tax laws and how they interact (thats all the tax laws in all the countries) – oh dear -requires a degree in rocket science and 10 years to read and digest the current laws. Not many anoracks in that camp!

  12. bis
    You do know that this audit and accounting firms write the code, they are not just consultants.

    So fuck off with your snide.

    Penis

    I’m only hateful when I see you.

  13. There are plenty. They don’t all work for those that want to secure financial secrecy and tax abuse.

  14. I can just imagine Arnald reading his way through the tax code while flipping burgers – what do you think of section 52 abuse?

  15. So rather than experts Arnald wants to get who to write the tax code? Perhaps people who have been unemployed all their life? Will they be able to write it better – they at least have no benefit from it themselves eh?

  16. Hold on a minute Davies, just because there is obvious collusion between dirty tax dodgers, their advisors and those same advisors working for HMRC, the fact that someone pointing it out and smelling a rat doesn’t mean they want to have to do it themselves.

    Is your world that inane?

  17. Arnald,

    EVERYONE has something to gain from taxes since everyone either pays them and/or receives their income from them…

  18. @Arnald keep it coming. Your contributions show the casual visitor how moronic your side is. Also how violent you would be if you ever got your hands on power. There have always been people like you to do the dirty work.

  19. Afternoon Arnald – Just a quick question or two:

    A;/ Whom would you suggest be included in the tax consultation base to which Murphy refers? I am assuming HMRC (who I believe are incorporated already) – whom else? PCS Trade Union? (This seems a reasonable request to me actually)

    B:/ Would you still permit the firms that in your eyes facilitate the tax avoidance to be part of the consultation process?

  20. Oh, Arnald does crack me up.

    “there is obvious collusion between dirty tax dodgers, their advisors and those same advisors working for HMRC”

    So now it’s not even enough to say that we should change the principle that that which is not specifically illegal is legal – here Arnald proposes that a deal specifically agreed with the Revenue to be legal is in fact tax evasion.

  21. just remember that when the SEC was set up, FDR asked an ex-bootlegger and swindler (as the manager of Gloria Swanson the film star, he got very rich and she just about kept her head above water) to take the role as a thank you for bankrolling his election victory. That man was the notorious Joseph Kennedy. I would say that the SEC has a better reputation than most such bodies; could it be because it was set up by a crook?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Kennedy

  22. “I’m fully in agreement with Arnald.”

    “So fuck off with your snide.”

    Just can’t please some people. I’m genuinely hurt.

  23. @ Diogenes
    May I suggest that you read “Nobody would listen” if you really think the SEC has a good reputation

  24. john77 – I think it has a better reputation than, say, the Takeover Panel, the MMC and all of their various predecessors and successors. Wouldn’t you agree to that? That is not to say that it is perfect but it still seems to do a better job than the FSA, or don’t you agree?

    I remember that when I was pulling together some very dodgy accounts for a listing on NASDAQ and LSE, the questions from the SEC were much more probing and to the point than those from the LSE or any other UK regulator.

  25. Bloke in Spain (#28)

    I’ve attempted to change tactics in recent posts involving Arnald to see if the approach of asking him reasoned questions elicits less vitriol and bile in response. It’ll have the effect of confirming that he is not actually Murphy commenting under another name, because however reasoned your arguments are on TR UK he’ll bar you as a ‘Troll’ for ‘time-wasting’ if he believes you’re of ‘NeoLiberal’ persuasion.

    Thus far, Arnald’s responses to me on the last two threads have avoided the usual tirade so hopefully we might better elicit his actual beliefs shorn of the obscenity. He strikes me as a rather Marxist type so far so it’s rather like arguing with a Flat Earther for me but it’s important to bring that dimension out.

  26. @ Diogenes
    The Takeover Panel has a good reputation, the FSA does not.
    The Takeover Panel is not responsible for listing – that is UKLA.

  27. to see if the approach of asking him reasoned questions elicits less vitriol and bile in response

    Less than an hour before you being nice to him resulted in him being his usual fuckwit self.

    It’s simply not worth it.

    Remember that his ‘evidence’ a couple of threads ago was a single paper from a Gramscian trot who is convinced that the EU Social Chapter is a capitalist plot to force workers to breed babies for them to roast for breakfast.

  28. Arnald – so you say someone doesn’t want to do it themselves – who WOULD you want involved in the writing of tax law?
    Who would have both no axe to grind and nothing to gain?

    In other words, who would shoulder the blame for loopholes?

  29. Reading Arnald here makes it very apparent that the world is quite a dismal, hateful place when you spend your days standing in front of a hot oil fryer and a mountain of potatos.

    The bottom line is this: You only get that sort of bile from someone who knows his life has gone well off the rail. He’s one of life’s losers… which is why he cannot image those with positive accomplishments in life (be they social or economic) getting them any other means than by cheating. It’d be sad if it weren’t for the fact that he works so hard to be insufferable about being a loser.

  30. Someone that can only reply by trying to put others down and using bad language – Arnald in case anyone can’t guess – I feel pity for.

  31. lmao Arnald in ruins.

    Crawl back to Ritchie’s shithole of a website whenever you’re embarrassed enough.

  32. A strong reason for low simple taxes is that it requires accounting firms to focus on their core role. So if Arnauld is sincere, he should back a flat
    tax.

    There is an issue of regulatory capture: another reason for smaller government.

  33. Arnald – so you have pulled out an ageing Lenininst to make your point and yet you claim your (and by extension Murphy’s) schaick has nothing to do with communism or the Soviet Union- more’s the fool you, sadly….

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>