Today\’s Ritchie

My word, is there no beginning to this man\’s knowledge?

It is important to stress the fact that this report is about tackling tax avoidance. This is distinct and different from raising taxes. This is the wrong time for the UK to raise taxes: they could shatter a fragile economic recovery as they are equivalent to spending cuts in their economic impact because they such aggregate demand out of the economy. Tackling tax avoidance is different. Whilst the aim is, of course, to stop revenue loss the impact is different from raising taxes because stopping tax avoidance actually increases voluntary tax compliance by most of the population who do not think some (and most especially the richest) are getting away with tax abuse that they cannot have access to, largely because wealth is required before tax avoidance pays in most cases.

Somewhere out there Keynes is revolving in his grave.

Whether you suck aggregate demand out of the economy by raising tax rates or whether you suck aggregate demand out of the economy by increasing collection of taxes already extant makes no damn difference to how much aggregate demand you\’re sucking out of the economy.

You\’re still providing a fiscal contraction by increasing taxes collected and reducing the budget deficit.

Remember, this is the man who is proud of not having paid attention to the economics part of his economics and accounting degree after the first term. \’Coz it were all rubbish, wern\’ it?

Lords preserve us from the ignorant…..

4 thoughts on “Today\’s Ritchie”

  1. If I see Fred the Shred sensibly avoiding tax and later see him proclaim he has seen the light and merrily handing over a comedy sized cheque to Alistair Darlink for a suitably contrite amount, I’m not going to stop being tax efficient with my own money. Fred the Shred’s tax matters are not my own and I seek to minimise the tax I pay.

    Does Dickie think everybody who arranges their affairs in a tax efficient manner is only doing so because of some high profile people do likewise and we are aping them?

    Are his plans to lessen tax avoidance revenue neutral? I don’t think they are but you could conceivably tackle tax loopholes by simplifying taxation *and* reduce tax rates in order to maintain the sum to be stolen from the productive.

  2. I suspect what Ritchie is actually going on about is what competent accountants call “tax evasion”. Ritchie never has seemed to grasp the distinction between it and “tax avoidance” (which is, by definition, legal).

    What I want to know is this: Given that it’s clear Ritchie didn’t pay attention to the accounting part of his accounting and economics degree after the first term either, just what the Hell was he doing all that time? It clearly wasn’t polishing his writing or analytical skills…

  3. There is a special class of ignorance that the Jesuits term ‘invinvible’. It is completely refractory to any ratiocination or counterexample. Murphy is its embodiment. Sadly this species of ignoramus can shrug off anything except a truly furious slapping. (I remember my Dad – who boxed for his regiment – telling me how one time he asked a bolshy interlocutor whether he had ever heard the phrase, “he who strikes the first blow has lost the argument.” “Yes,” comes the reply. “Well, I’ve lost this one,” says Pop, and decks the twat.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *