Fascinating stuff from Richard Murphy

Our intrepid campaigner against tax avoidance: you know, working the tax laws to your own benefit?

Lovely series of articles in which Ritchie seems to be advocating:

Turn your nanny into a personal services company and save £2, 530 a year.

Use the stakeholder pension to save up to 20% of income that you won\’t have to pay in national insurance.

Reduce your tax bill by claiming all of your allowances.

We should change the law so we don\’t worry about fiddles under £1,000.

Save 10% of your income by incorporating.

It\’s all very different from what he says now, isn\’t it?

15 thoughts on “Fascinating stuff from Richard Murphy”

  1. Those were a long time ago, we all know Dickie has seen the light and the error of his ways in the past. I am sure he’d never write articles like this now.
    He’d probably send a cheque to the revenue for all the tax avoidance his advice has cost us, the non-avoiding cheerful taxpayers. Except you can’t just write a cheque to the taxman.

  2. Interesting, Murohy’s earlier work seems to be based upon quackery such as provable facts and statistics.

    Seems those days are long gone. Murphy’s current work is naturally much more intellectually rigourous; based upon hunches, half-baked opinions, half-truths and statistics plucked out of thin air.

  3. posted on RM’s ‘tax research’ site but will get deleted by the Stalinist hyocrite
    who is this Richard Murphy advocating tax avoidance / minimisation tricks to the guardianista middle -classes back in 2001-2003?
    How many kidney dialysis machines were not bought because Observer and Guardian readers were busy incorporating their nannies to save tax?

  4. Crikey it took you a long time to find them, didn’t it Tim?

    The first was written because I could think of no better way of killing a scheme then being promoted on the professional lecture circuit than to give it publicity. I didn’t have blogs etc in those days. It worked. I call that a success.

    The second fell into the same category – it did not work.

    The third is about tax compliance. I stand by it.

    The fourth is about tax simplification. I stand by it.

    The fifth follows the logic of 1 and 2 – and was the way I thought I could seeking to highlight an abuse to draw attention to it.

    Would I use that method now? No! I don’t need to. Was it the best I could do at the time? Yes, I thought so.

    Do I apologise for using the Observer in that way? No!

    But keep whistling if you want to find dirt Tim – because you won’t

    Not least because a) years before you’ll find articles from me arguing against incorporation b) I never used a nanny scheme and never sold one c) I never advised clients to buy pensions for the reasons noted

    So all you’ve discovered is methods have changed over time.

    And some maybe weren’t terribly transparent

    Big deal

    Now tackle the real issues – like the abuse I was seeking to stop then, and now

    And you’ll note when

  5. Pingback: Fascinating stuff

  6. How do you square this…
    “The first was written because I could think of no better way of killing a scheme then being promoted on the professional lecture circuit than to give it publicity. ”

    with this

    “This may be the time to set your nanny up in her own personal company”.


  7. Do you think Murphy might be prevailed upon to use his peerless statistical and economics skills to tell us how much of the tax gap is attributable to the artificial tax avoidance schemes he has himself suggested and indeed promoted?

    The brass neck of the man almost reaches Peter Mandelson proportions.

  8. Pingback: Tax Research UK » Petty, pedantic - and also wrong

  9. Pingback: In which we are challenged by Richard Murphy

  10. Pingback: The Tax Gap: More Socialist Cobblers? « Neil Reddin … No G

  11. Pingback: The Tax Gap: More Socialist Cobblers? « Vir Cantium

Leave a Reply

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