Well, yes, it would be interesting if UK taxes rose by £100 billion, wouldn’t it?

And third you make clear you’ll collect what is owed but not paid. This is getting this debate back to the tax gap, but with a twist. To be fully understood tax not paid is not just that illicitly unpaid, however important that is. It is also potential tax bases not charged, like wealth, financial transactions and land value.

And tax unpaid is also tax given away in allowances and reliefs, like the £50 billion spent subsidising the savings of UK pensioners annually. Or the £2.8 billion spent subsidising ISA savings. And the £28 billion annual cost of wholly exempting the capital gains in homes from tax.

Pointing out these issues is what will, in my opinion, inspire interest in the tax revenue cycle because once they are understood then the answer to the ‘How are you going to pay for it?’ Question has to be more than a shrug of the shoulders and a ‘We can’t afford it’ because with the right data people will know that’s a choice and not a reality.

I am going to work on this.

That really is insisting that everything, but everything, should be taxed, isn’t it?

28 comments on “Well, yes, it would be interesting if UK taxes rose by £100 billion, wouldn’t it?

  1. So tax not paid is literally the value of everything everyone earns and owns which hasn’t yet been taken by the State.

    Didn’t he get into a strop a few years ago when people said he believed that everyone’s income and wealth belonged to the State?

    Anyway, mysteriously, tax not paid because income was derived from political grants didn’t make his list of “tax not paid”‘.

  2. I didn’t win the lottery this week. In fact I didn’t enter. The £2m I didn’t win is literally a cost to me.

  3. And, to the right side of his blogs where he increasingly advocates state ownership of everything and a universal income from the state, without any understanding of irony there is an advert for the “Joy of Tax”.

    Comedy Gold

  4. Pointing out these issues is what will, in my opinion, inspire interest in the tax revenue cycle because once they are understood then the answer to the ‘How are you going to pay for it?’ Question has to be more than a shrug of the shoulders and a ‘We can’t afford it’ because with the right data people will know that’s a choice and not a reality.
    I am going to work on this.

    Why bother? He has already told us, over and over again, that taxation is not required for spending.

    So why worry about it? Why can’t the government simply print the money, as the uberTuber describes in his seminal paper, “Candidly Telling Everyone Else What To Do”.

  5. Like all lefties, what’s right and what’s wrong is dependent on his thoughts in the moment. There is no plan, there are no principles, there is no logic.

  6. Well he previously said that home owners should be taxed on the increase in value of their homes because they were tax havens. When i pointed out that the rise in house prices was due to demand exceeding supply, and his suggestions were unfair and caused by spite as penalising home owners wouldn’t increase supply he accused me of perpetuating inequality and being an idiot ( after saying that councils are not funded by council tax). He’s previously said that tax doesn’t pay for spending so why he’s banging on about the tax gap . He really hates homeowners and pensioners – he justifies it by “think of the young”. I call it envy by proxy as he’s comfortably off himself. The sooner he fucks off to some third rate technical college in belgium the better- preferably one in molenbeek.

  7. You don’t even need taxes to deal with the inflation his money printing scheme will create as inflation isn’t actually a problem. The righteous can saved from its effects just by bring given more and more of the printed money, it will only be the (un)diserving who will lose value via inflation. The tax gap will vanish, along with all tax accountants and HMRC.

  8. Not taxing something is not a subsidy if it available to all.

    Equally, a reduction in a tax rate is not a subsidy.

    Spud’s definition of a tax subsidy implies the personal allowance is a subsidy; the 20% rate is a subsidy: 45% for all; and the 5% VAT on elec/gas 0% on food etc is a subsidy.

    He is mad as a hatter.

  9. Ah, see what he done there?

    He’s finally given up justifying his bonkers tax gap numbers, so…..

    The Tax gap is now to include taxes that could be levied but currently are not.

    So any bat shit crazy number he dreams up, he can now justify.

    There are enough people out there dumb enough to buy that.

  10. I blame the school bullies, they didn’t hold his head down the bog anywhere near long enough.

  11. @BIND “I blame the school bullies, they didn’t hold his head down the bog anywhere near long enough.” – he’s like one of those turds you can’t flush.

  12. Make of this what you will

    Graeme says:
    October 11 2017 at 6:52 pm
    Richard I am getting confused again because so many of your statements seem contradictory to me.

    About a month ago you wrote

    The reality is that tax does not pay for government spending. That’s paid for with new currency created by the Bank of England for the government on overdraft. Tax clears the overdraft. To the extent that tax may be insufficient for that task bonds do the rest, which if evidence that tax does not pay for spending is needed is surely certain proof on the issue
    . This suggests that tax is not required for spending but to prevent inflation.

    Then you wrote a blogpost advising Mark Carney not to raise interest rates

    The only reason I can see for an interest rate rise at present is to preserve the interests of those with wealth. And their interests have already been extraordinarily well served by our economy.

    Increasing the inflation target would be in the interests of everyone else in the UK at present.
    So you seem to be saying that inflation is too low in the UK at the moment. So why are you advocating swingeing tax increases now given that tax in your words is a mechanism to control inflation?

    I am sure that I have missed a gap in your reasoning or simply misunderstood what you are saying.

    Reply
    Richard Murphy says:
    October 11 2017 at 8:49 pm
    If yob bothered to read The Joy of Tax you would note I argue there are six reasons to tax.

    One is redistribution

    I can argue for increases fir that reason and not want an increase in the overall tax take

    This stuff really is not hard unless you think the world is binary

    Let me assure you, it isn’t

  13. I have just thought up a new tax whereby anybody who produces any sort of flatulent tosspottery is automatically taxed at 500% of their annual income for that year.

    Can somebody please get in touch with Richard Murphy so that we can get his tax owing, that of any government worker, and all writers for the BBC and Guardian added to the tax gap?

    Ooooh, and we could also tax anybody found to be avoiding tax at 100% of the tax owed; so can double the calculation of the tax gap instantly! And if we then taxed people at 100% of the penalty tax then we could double the size of it again. A few rounds of this and the State could afford to give us anything we wanted if only they collected the tax gap!

  14. @diogenes – the usual flannel and evasion. Note that in his world redistribution is about taking more tax from one person so as to ……… – doesn’t suggest giving it to the poor – just taking it. I tried to argue this point with him re his suggested taxes on home ownership – how does making me poorer benefit anyone else other than giving you vicaroius thrill of fucking over someone who doesn’t agree with you. He didn’t answer just accused me of being an idiot. i might be, but not on that point. That’s why he’s a grade A cunt – joy of tax my arse – i worked for the revenue for 30 years – didn’t see much fucking joy there.

  15. He wants power over others and he wants people who didn’t help him to become as rich as he wanted to be punished.
    He does fit into a psych profile pretty well, some on here will know what the profile is.

  16. @van patten – nice one , though as i recall the nazis didn’t like congenital idiots and the mentally handicapped.

  17. Yes, someone should definitely poke him with the tax-free allowance and 20% rate being a subsidy that should be abolished in favour of a single rate.

    See if you can get him to argue in favour of a flat tax on that basis, given that last week he called flat tax “not a serious attempt at taxation”.

  18. Martin

    He does fit into a psych profile pretty well, some on here will know what the profile is

    I do. He’s a cunt.

  19. Let me assure Snippa that the world is binary : those allowed to comment on his blog and those he has banned. It seems that Graeme is now in the latter category

  20. I wrote too soon. Snippa seems to enjoy patronising him. He doesn’t seem to realise that if your 6 reasons to tax contradict each other then you have a problem which is probably impossible to solve

  21. I think I’m about to be banned. Time to roll out another personality from my History Of The Quakers In Yorkshire.

  22. I enjoyed Richard’s recent post on the profit motive. He comments that he used to turn down clients whom he thought might be out to screw him. For some reason it reminded me of a recent scene we shot with a donkey

  23. Oh dear, someone has introduced the great man to the word “satisficing”. I am sure we will be bombarded by strange misuses of it while he is proceeding to reinvent the theory of the firm – eg isn’t it already widely accepted in economic theory that profit-maximisation is not the only reason for going into business? Luckily, Murphy is going to break yet more new ground by explaining that profit-maximisation is not the only reason for people to go into business.

Leave a Reply

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