What Joy! We can invest in Ritchie!

You can now become part of the Fair Tax story.

We are asking anyone who shares our vision to become part of it by becoming an investor member. Our society will be democratically owned and run by you the members and shareholders, for the benefit of the community.

The Fair Tax Mark is registered as an Industrial and Provident Society (IPS) and as such can offer shares in the business.

In order to further the business, and indeed its campaigning aims, we are now seeking to raise capital through the issue of shares with an interest rate of 5%.

The capital raised through this share issue will provide sufficient working capital to the IPS in its start-up phase. Specifically, this will pay for the marketing and promotion of the Mark and the development of additional criteria so that we can assess a broad range of organisations.

This is an exciting opportunity to invest in a genuinely ground-breaking project which has no precedent anywhere in the world. We are looking to use the power of accreditation to encourage responsible behaviour in a completely new area, one which has important consequences for the way our future societies develop.

And now for the snigger:

We are currently investigating the practicality of arranging Enterprise Investment Scheme tax relief for investments in our shares.

When other people use the standard provisions of the law to reduce their tax bill this is tax abuse. When Ritchie does it….

38 comments on “What Joy! We can invest in Ritchie!

  1. Having read their “prospectus”, they want £70,000 to spend on advertising and promoting the Fair Tax Mark, and on research, and this doesn’t even get you an equity stake in the business. While the founders are putting virtually none of their own money at risk.

    Thanks, but I’m out.

  2. Seems nobody wants to buy a Fair Tax Mark then!

    I think he should have stuck with his original plan and called it “The Tax Tick” – as in blood sucking parasite!

    Domain Name: thetaxtick.com
    Registry Domain ID:
    Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.1und1.info
    Registrar URL: http://1and1.com
    Updated Date: 2013-11-27 00:00:00
    Creation Date: 2012-11-27 00:00:00
    Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2014-11-27 00:00:00
    Registrar: 1&1 Internet AG
    Registrar IANA ID: 83
    Registrar Abuse Contact Email: abuse@1and1.com
    Registrar Abuse Contact Phone:
    Reseller:
    Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited
    Registry Registrant ID:
    Registrant Name: Richard Murphy
    Registrant Organization: Fulcrum Chartered Accountants

  3. They can’t give you an equity stake in the business, not in the normal sense. The financial terms of the offer are pretty much what I’d expect; the thing that looks a little odd to me is that every member gets a single vote regardless of shareholding.

    The business plan is interesting, though. They don’t seem to be anticipating a great rush of customers, which could mean they’re being commendably prudent, or could mean that they risk getting swamped. It’s also interesting how much of the income is from grants, and how much of the work done is pro bono.

  4. To be honest, the return on the investment will be fairly immaterial if they can get EIS relief (which I’d have thought might be tricky, given the business it’s in and the terms fo the shares, but the SCEC tends to be quite helpful about this sort of thing). £60 back on a £200 investment beats £10 a year, especially when the 5% can be varied. If they can get SEIS then even better.

  5. What a pile of festering smegma the man is.

    I wonder if Murphy Richards will offer an alternative investment opportunity that does not rely on contributing to the Tax Gap to become viable?

  6. So he wants me to stick in £100 (or whatever) and if it goes wrong I take a bath, but if it goes right he’s a hero?

    Heads he wins, tails I lose. With him, strong is the dark side…

  7. I wonder if Starbucks, Vodafone, and Arcadia Group will apply for a Fair Tax Mark, for the Lols.

    After all, they have legal proof they comply with all official requirements, and with the Fair Tax Criteria.

  8. I bet the bastards are claiming capital allowances and business expenses as well!

    It’ll be interesting to see what tax they pay as a % of their turnover.

    Oh, wait it’s an IPS so it will never pay tax anyway!

    Why didn’t they set it up as a limited company? Is it a tax dodge?

    Are we sure Murphy Richards isn’t behind all this?

    It must be a result of the bare-faced, shitty hypocrisy of the girlies earlier on that made him do it. Equality for all!

  9. @Charles

    If they did and were not granted one, I’d have thought they’d have a fairly clear basis for (a defamation) action.

    The lies told about Starbucks seem to have caused them significant financial loss, after all. (See expansion of Costa.)

  10. The more I think about this the more Pythonesque it becomes.

    A Mafia-like body, stuffed with lefty nut-cases, will upon receipt of a suitable bung, give you a bit of protection from other left-wing nutcases by giving you a “Fair Tax Mark”.

    The only recipients of a FTM will be companies whose directors have ignored company and tax laws and defrauded their shareholders by paying out money they didn’t have to.

    This Mafia-like body is structured as a tax efficient vehicle with no possible potential liability to it’s shareholders.

    FTM certainly deserves some sort of award itself…

  11. He suggested to me that the dream is to get the public sector to make the mark a requirement in the tendering process.

    There is no shortage of stupid Labour councillors around the country to get suckered into this. (There are legal problems, but that won’t stop them).

    If he lands that fish, ka-ching, ka-ching. Sylvester McMonkey McBean from the Sneetches story in Dr Seuss.

  12. John Miller: FTM certainly deserves some sort of award itself…

    “The Crooked Sixpence”

  13. You’re missing the point here guys. Its an Industrial and Provident Society, which means OMOV. However much money you put in, you get one vote. Thus what we should all do is put in the minimum amount each. Lie low for a bit, let them get the thing set up, all puffed on the Beeb etc, Fair Tax Mark to show up nasty multinationals etc. Then turn up mob handed at an AGM, install TW as Chairman, give out Tax Marks to all and sundry, possibly for hefty payments, which of course we will vote to give to charity, thus pissing off the other financial backers royally.

  14. Apparently this spun out of a 2012 grant from Lush Cosmetics to Ethical Consumer to develop its work on, amongst other things, “an Amazon boycott”.

    How’s that going boys? Can I read about it in Richard e-book “The Courageous State”?

  15. Pellinor

    The prosepctus says…
    “Offering their services to the project pro bono although this is not sustainable in the long term”

    Oh right.

  16. Ironman: yes, that’s one of the interesting points. One could easily read it as saying “Our business model is not sustainable” – which would have to rank as one of the less encouraging things I’ve seen in an investment prospectus 🙂

    I can only assume that the increasing staff costs shown in the business plan include a gradual replacement of pro bono work by paid staff. It still seems light on costs, though, given the amount of work Murphy has told me needs doing for each customer (a day or more of discussion and consultation).

  17. @ Jim

    I also was thinking along those lines. The other option given their tiny balance sheet is to simply buy 51% of the company in equity terms, cash all the shareholders out (as you have the right to do with these shares), distribute the remaining equity and then simply shut the thing down.

    Though it would be much more fun to watch the horror creep across Murphy’s face when the shareholders vote to remove him as a director and install Tim Worstall in his place.

  18. So one of the Directors is vehemently opposed to Amazon whilst our dear friend RM tries to consistently hawk his works of fiction through the same retailer. Those Board meetings must be a real bundle of laughs. For a hundred quid I’m certainly in for the one member one vote.

    Still waiting for Murphy Richards to respond!

  19. Can we start an “Unfair tax” mark for all of those who are not happy with the level of taxation.

  20. From his point of view its a masterstroke. He won’t approve or indeed understand (say) Starbucks’ application. If they applied, he would just refuse and there will be no real appeal procedure.

    Meanwhile it’s all over the head of my Local Council who will think its just brilliant and make it a requirement to tender. The whole thing ends up as a donation to RM for him to decide on a capricious whim whether you are one of lifes good people or not.

  21. I’ve just noticed this on the FTM website – apologies if its been flagged before; it’s quite a long quote but interestingly worded. The first bit is David Gauke’s, from the Westminster Hall debate, and then FTM’s response:

    ‘ “The specific proposal for a Fair Tax Mark is a new initiative … If such an initiative is to work effectively, clear and objective criteria must be in place and must be applied fairly and objectively by informed and credible experts who are well respected by business and the wider public. There must also be a governance structure that addresses any concerns about conflicts of interest and ensures independence. If the fair tax mark can meet those tests, it will be a particularly valuable contribution to the debate.”

    We have the independence and objectivity the Minister mentions.’

    That’s from http://www.fairtaxmark.net/treasury-minister-welcomes-fair-tax-mark/ They don’t actually address the matter of whether their experts are all ‘credible’…

  22. Really, I shouldn’t dwell on this piece of ordure, but it’s making me nauseaous.

    What sort of ego do you have to have, to demand that the Curajus State is the only arbiter and provider of all that is Good and True, except where Dick thinks it’s not good enough; so he, and only he, is allowed to step in and remedy the deficiency.

    What a day for hypocrisy, ignorance and arrogance.

    I may need a glass of something strong any minute now.

    No wonder some of us choose to drink to oblivion – both as a toast and an aim.

  23. This gives me an idea for a business called The Fair Cats Mark.

    Anybody who gives me £100 will be allowed to use the Fair Cats Mark to show they aren’t feline-hating fascists.

    There will be a strict auditing process to ensure the credibility of the Fair Cats Mark. Only once the cheques have been independently verified as having cleared in my bank account will firms be allowed to use the Mark.

    Anyone who doesn’t give me money will be automatically suspect. While I won’t publicly say these hold-outs are heartless monsters who are cruel to kitties, candidly, I will heavily imply it.

    I invite you all to participate in this heroic venture, by sending me cash which I will definitely not line my pockets with before liquidating the company and blaming neoliberal cat-abusers for you not getting a refund.

  24. You Brits are somewhat slow on the uptick when it comes to business opportunities, you know.

    For example: I’m pretty sure Murphy learned how to put together this scam watching the NAACP hand out “Lifetime Achievement” awards to people like Donald Sterling. Hell, they were going to hand him a second “Lifetime Achievement” award, and all it cost Sterling was a $5,000 donation to the LA chapter of the NAACP back in 2010.

    Come on, Murphy, get with the times! You should have had this up an running a couple of years ago!

  25. So let me get this right. He’s trying to get £70,000 with a minimum investment of £200. Each investor gets one vote. So if one were to get 350 like minded investors together, they would presumably dilute out all other voting power on any matters. Interesting.

    Also, the investment is repayable on notice at any time without penalty. So if said group of like minded individuals signed up, and encouraged the company to spunk the money away fairly quickly, then withdrew their investment, there would be a fairly embarrassing collapse. Also Interesting.

  26. So, he wants local government to mandate that their suppliers purchase his mark. How deliciously fascist.

  27. @seulmoi: its better than that, you only need 176 people to put in £200, because the maximum number of investors is 350 (assuming one raises £70k in £200 chunks). Then you’d have a majority. In fact one assumes that there will be a few well heeled Lefty types who’ll each chuck a few K in, maybe even the maximum(£20K). So I reckon 100 @ £200 would be enough. It would certainly be a big enough voting bloc to cause a lot of trouble.

  28. Dennis The Peasant – “You Brits are somewhat slow on the uptick when it comes to business opportunities, you know.”

    This is true. But in all fairness, Sterling was dealing with a community that has no real economic function except shaking rich White people down for cash. That is why the “Reverend” Jessie Jackson has such a nice house. That is the whole point of the Great Society racially-based wealth transfer scheme.

    So Ritchie is atypical of many Irishmen. You know, he has held a job down for a number of years. And shaking Brits down for cash isn’t quite the same industry among Britain’s Irish community. Unlike in the US where all Black politics is about, basically, either mugging White people or using guilt to shake them down.

  29. Great news about Adams, SMFE
    Always had a doubt about whether peace and reconciliation was compatible with law and order.
    Even for the Daily Dim, putting this news below the totty test and Peaches Geldoff in the on line DiM is odd, to say the least.

  30. Jim,
    ‘So I reckon 100 @ £200 would be enough. It would certainly be a big enough voting bloc to cause a lot of trouble.’

    He won’t have worked it out, but the really clever bit is he could easily shelve it after having received everyone’s subs, and we’d have all paid £ 200 simply for the threat of introducing ‘The Mark’ (Isn’t there something biblical in that ?). Now that’s proper old school protection racket.

  31. The way to play them at their own game is to introduce the ‘Maximising Value for Shareholders’ mark or something equally infuriating, plant an idea with a few lefty activists that they could subscribe to infiltrate and change the direction of the company to keep any awards from being given out, and then collapse the whole thing as unsustainable. Bingo, they pay for nothing happening.

  32. @Worzel: no chance of that – as mentioned above, you can ask for your money back at any time, so if all 100 did so (and they couldn’t pay because they’d spent it all on Starbucks lattes in the course of research or something) it would get wound up. Or they just refused to pay, we could all sue. All of which would be great ammo to chuck at RM next time, rather like with Will Hutton, who can never now escape the fact he bankrupted the Work Society, or whatever policy think tank he drove into the ground.

Leave a Reply

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