Ritchie\’s Manifesto

So much to like about this:

We demand:

a. That the government stop the cuts

b. That all job cuts at H M Revenue & Customs be cancelled

c. That 20,000 new staff be recruited at H M Revenue & Customs to tackle the tax gap

That\’ll please Mr. Serwotka, won\’t it, the head of the PCS union, the union which represents those HMRC workers, and which pays for some/a lot of Ritchie\’s work?

Isn\’t there some folk wisdom thing about this? Peeps paying pipers and calling tunes?

We note:

1. That big business is not paying the tax expected of it

2. That big business is the only part of the economy expecting a tax cut over the next four years

3. That by 2014 big business will be paying tax at lower rates than any small business and any individual in the UK

Still failing to note the basic economics of taxation, ain\’t he? That companies don\’t in fact carry the burden of taxes?

7 thoughts on “Ritchie\’s Manifesto”

  1. 20,000 staff to find out that companies are paying less than the headline rate of corporation tax because they’ve quite legitimately claimed relief on R&D and so forth?

  2. “Still failing to note the basic economics of taxation, ain’t he? That companies don’t in fact carry the burden of taxes?”
    I told a lefty I know that and he said
    “You have not studied accountancy, I have. If you had you would understand it better”.

    Is it me or does that mean.
    “I can not answer your point so I am going to patronise you?”

  3. David, I had a similar conversation with someone on this, who couldn’t believe that companies actually don’t exist, other than as an abstract concept.

    As I have tried to explain to Ritchie on incidence some time ago, companies don’t need to eat, pay bills, support children or take holidays. People do. Imposing taxes on companies makes no difference to the company – only to the people dependent on them.

  4. Still failing to accept that your incidence argument is simply an attempt to pull the wool over people’s eyes: a lobbying tool, nothing more. Persuade people that it is true, drive corporation taxes down to zero, and then all your rich chums gleefully shift their income into the corporate category, then we will have to drive down top rates of income tax to minimise income shifting – and then your rich chums, and perhaps you, get to free ride on the rest of us. Yours is a bankrupt argument, and a hoax. Oh, and there is this, from the CBO:

    “capital bears the full burden of the worldwide average corporate tax”
    http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/115xx/doc11519/05-2010-Working_Paper-Corp_Tax_Incidence-Review_of_Gen_Eq_Estimates.pdf

    Tim adds: Yes, we’ve been through this before. With this very paper. I too can quote from it:

    “Effectively, high corporate-tax countries export a burden on capital and import a burden on labor.”

    What I really don’t understand about you and Ritchie in denying this basic economic point, that the greater the capital mobility (and as we’ve seen, within the EEA, this is extremely high. Shire and WPP were able to get out of the corporation tax net simply by shuffling a few bits of paper and the head office) the more labour pays the corporation tax, is that this central fact would be so helpful to your cause.

    If you went around telling people that well, capital and companies don’t pay this corporation tax so therefore, in order to make them do so, we need to have EU wide corporation and capital taxes (which would create something akin to a closed economy in the relevant sense) then you’d get an awful lot of listeners and probably be able to persuade more people.

    Of course, this would mean accepting that corporations and capital don’t bear the burden of the current one, but it would still be a great campaigning tool for you. I really don’t understand why you don’t do this.

Leave a Reply

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