The ever Glorious Richard Murphy!

Lordie be, the man\’s got some nerve. So the IMF comes out and says that we shouldn\’t have a Robin Hood Tax, that we shouldn\’t have a financial transactions tax. We should, instead, have an insurance levy on balance sheets (or liabilities, same thing).

Richard then says:

I have recommended both taxes here

And he refers us to his own report, \”Taxing Banks\”.

And in that report he says:

As the report notes, the short term alternative of an insurance charge that some promote as an alternative to
financial transaction taxes does not have any of the benefits flowing from adoption of these taxes as noted
above, nor can it raise equivalent revenues. In addition, whilst financial transaction taxes should only eliminate
marginal trades but leave markets intact with ample liquidity, the proposed rate of the US levy at 15 basis
points is well above margins on many of the trades noted in this report and is consequently likely to be
harmful to the operation of some markets. This should not be the case for financial transaction taxes which are
to be preferred as a result.

That is, he specifically argues AGAINST an insurance style levy on liabilities and IN FAVOUR of an FTT.

The IMF argues entirely the opposite, against an FTT and in favour of a liabilities tax.

And this is evidence that the IMF agrees with Ritchie.

One more lovely line:

And amazingly financial transaction taxes have been ignored – incorrectly in my opinion.

No, they haven\’t been ignored. They\’ve been considered and rejected.

5 thoughts on “The ever Glorious Richard Murphy!”

  1. The important word in anything RM writes is tax. The rest of it is about how we should be paying it.
    Apart from those two principles the rest of what he writes is content free.

  2. Murphy is worse than those that he castigates for not having the same fiction based opinions he peddles via his blog. His opinions and writings simply support the political views of those that support him financially.

  3. Mr Murphy is the dismal sciences’ dismal scientist. He is, apparently, economics advisor to the TUC. Once this is understood. all falls into place.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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