@RichardJMurphy really is a lad, in’e?

But that is not to say there aren’t problems with the outcome. Firstly, and most importantly, tax paid has been interpreted literally and cash tax paid is to be used as this measure, which is absurd as cash paid in a year for tax does not relate to profit in a year. I warned EU legislators on this issue when this law was rushing through the parliament and was advised I should accept whatever we get, but this is a poor outcome.

Anyone remember his survey of the amount of tax paid by large corporates? Where he used cash tax paid in the year as the measure of the tax burden? Insisting, for example, that deferred tax should not be used in any manner? Despite the obvious fact that the corporation tax due on this year’s profits is actually paid next year?

Nothing like consistency, eh? Absolutely nothing like it at all…..

7 comments on “@RichardJMurphy really is a lad, in’e?

  1. To be fair to Richard, in most work of his I’ve seen he’s used the current tax charge (ignoring the deferred tax charge) as opposed to the corporation tax paid.

    Although I think the numbers he has used he has done so in a misleading fashion (in the fair tax mark or his corporate tax gap estimates, for example), if he has done what you’ve said, I’d be a little surprised if it was deliberate. Do you have a link?

    Tim adds: Sorry, no link, buried in the welter of Ragging on Ritchie….

  2. “To be fair to Richard”

    That is very fair, civil and courteous of you Ben.

    It is a fairness and courtesy that is not extended by our irascible friend to anyone who is not a sycophantic brown-noser squarely on all fours with his own dogmatic position.

  3. BraveFart (#2)

    Absolutely correct, and I think there needs to be a moratorium on including the words (or a variant thereof)

    ‘In fairness to Murphy’

    The Courageous state and its erstwhile author have not the slightest interest in fairness, only in arbitrary and capricious rule by Unionized bureaucracy. He remains one of the most dangerous men in Britain, if not the world, and is not deserving of any consideration of ‘fairness’, not least because of his attitude to any criticism of his idiocy.

  4. Apologies for the use of the fair. I can assure you that it was intended to act as a warning to readers.

    In future I will use the following disclaimer:

    “In bringing myself to be as objective as I possibly can about somebody who has called me an enemy of free speech….”

  5. Ben

    I think it is fair to say that most of the WGCE’s work that I have looked at looks at the corporation tax charge, and excludes deferred tax, presumably because that is nasty and complicated. He has also not shown much ability to get to the actual amount of “tax paid” – you can always get to it in a set of accounts, but of course it can be difficult to relate that to the year’s profits to which it relates.

  6. I assume that Murphy excludes deferred tax in order to make it appear that businesses are underpaying, which is the only reasonable explanation for his excluding prior year losses.
    In an expanding business, or one that is shrinking more slowly than the value of the £10 note in your pocket, capital allowances will exceed the accountant’s charge for depreciation based on historic cost, so tax provision will generally exceed tax paid.
    He is consistent in one thing – trying to pretend that the 14% of GNP budget deficit inherited by Alastair Darling was all due to the wicked Tories/capitalists dodging paying tax and not due to the wilful profligacy of his favourite politician.

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.