What is the incidence of ‘enormous’ advisory fees?
Indeed, what is the incidence of such fees?
When the TUC hires R. Murphy to write a report, who actually carries that burden?
I don\’t know what Ritchie charges but my own experience of the market would indicate something in the high hundreds of pounds to the low thousands of pounds for such reports.
So some group of trade unionists, somewhere, are paying their union dues, some of which flow upwards to the national organisation and then to Mr. Murphy.
When Christian Aid or Action Aid hire Murphy to write a report, where does the incidence lie then? Presumably some alternative or combination of donors to said charities or, if paid from internal resources, some group of starving children somewhere doesn\’t get that last few hundred pounds which could have been spent on food for them but instead went to gracing the Murphy family table.
What is the incidence of the Ford Foundation\’s subvention to the Tax Justice Network? I\’m not sure I\’m right here but I have in the back of my mind that they\’ve handed over some $250,000 or so. Presumably this is $250,000 that cannot be spent upon healing the sick of this world or some other charitable endeavour.
It\’s an interesting thing, this incidence of advisory fees, isn\’t it?
For of course it\’s entirely possible to go on to say that while the above might be true, the end result of such work and fees is that the world is made a better place. Certainly, while I\’m not entirely convinced myself that Ritchie\’s activities do make for a happier and better globe, I\’m entirely certain that he believes that he is doing so and as such his actions are to be applauded. Making a living by attempting make said world a better place is admirable and should be admired.
But then it\’s not only Ritchie\’s advisory fees that are subject to the same defence, is it?