So, they strengthened the headline a bit:
The BBC, not its presenters, is the real tax dodger
A bit stronger than me:
Some 100 or so of the BBC’s highly paid presenters and talent are said to have used such a scheme, on the grounds that the BBC encouraged them to do so. It’s employers’ NI which goes unpaid here, so who is the tax dodger? Possibly the employer, the BBC itself?
Sadly, they took out the reference to Richard Murphy, the man who recommended such schemes for nannies in The Observer.
The final piece from Monday’s blitz:
This conceit works the other way around, of course. It’s not possible for us to examine our supply chain. Because once we get past a level or two, that supply chain is the entire global economy. For example, if my hip replacement was done by the NHS with these child labor-derived tools, then your reading material (this article) used child labor in its supply chain.
The current movement that we should all be checking our suppliers fails for the same reason that central planning did last time around: We simply cannot examine the global economy in enough detail to find out who is doing what and where.
From a large and decrepit building in SW1:
Re your CapX story, and speaking as a landowner and landlord,
All of which makes our post-Brexit farming subsidy system obvious enough. We can lower the cost of becoming a farmer by lowering that input cost of land. All we need to do is stop sending money to the people who currently own that land. Sounds like a bit of a plan, really. And given that this is pretty much all that we currently actually do to “subsidise” farming, doing away with this malpractice means that we’ll just stop subsidising the entire sector completely.
Britain’s future farm subsidy system should be not to have one. Precisely because of the new evidence on land prices, even thinking about that outcome lowers the price of farmland – and why on earth would we want that to be expensive in the first place? As long as we’re not landlords, of course.
The IPPR is the latest groupuscule to insist that the capital share is rising:
And worse again. They actually give us no evidence that the profit or capital share is increasing. They simply tell us that the labour share is decreasing and the assumption made is that the capital share is the mirror image. It isn’t. Obviously, if we look only at the wage share, it isn’t, we must add back in the other costs of employment (yes, including increased NI contributions, taxes upon employment) to gain the true labour share. But even that’s not enough.
There are four sectors to the national income, capital, labour, mixed income, subsidies to production and taxes upon consumption. Mixed income has risen as there are more self employed about. This reduces the labour share while not changing the profit share one iota. Taxes and subsidies – well, think on VAT, a tax on consumption, this has risen substantially over the decades. So too has the amount of subsidy to production – think of all those feed in tariffs, this is where they appear in the national income.
He doesn’t get it in the slightest:
Blockchain is a foundational digital technology that rivals the internet in its potential for transformation. To explain: essentially, “blocks” are segregated, vast bundles of data in permanent communication with each other so that each block knows what the content is in the rest of the chain. However, only the owner of a particular block has the digital key to access it.
So what? First, the blocks are created by “miners”, individual algorithm writers and companies throughout the world (with a dense concentration in China), who want to add a data block to the chain.