In addition, it is time to recognise that the assumption that capital is mobile is just that: an assumption and it is clearly false.

Ritchie\’s just declared that absolutely every economist who has looked at the economics of taxation is wrong.

The entire science glibly dismissed.

Rather brave of him, don\’t you think?

11 thoughts on “Fascinating”

  1. Tim

    You’ve just obliged me to click on his site again. Boosting his ratings. Not sure we are doing the right thing here.

  2. “4 Raising representation by being the consideration in the social contract between the electorate and the state, as a result of which most people participate in the democratic process”

    Can anyone explain what point 4 means? Maybe I’m a little dense but it’s beyond me. How does tax raise representation. I can understand how it might reduce it. People keeping themselves off the Electoral Register so the tax man can’t find them but how increase?

  3. I guess he means that tax layers are more likely to vote, as they want a say in how their money I’d spent.

    Tim, Back in Portugal OK?

  4. Tim you’ve done it again, I only went and read ritchie’s ravings and dammit went and left a comment – past experience shows that it will be deleted, so here it is again, although clearly I realise that here I am pushing on an open door as the Italians would say:

    “CNH is right but only assuming that what you earn is yours.

    Ritchie’s core assumption is that what you earn is not yours, and belongs to the state. Therefore if the state is kind enough to let you keep it then that is effectively a subsidy.

    Unfortunately basing an entire economic system on this paradigm has been demonstrated not to be terribly successful as Soviet Russia and North Korea illustrate.

    Another interesting example is China – a great leap forward in the 50’s following “Ritchie-ist” economics resulted in the deaths of around 40 million people. A second attempt has been based rather more on non-Ritchie-ism and has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of grinding poverty.”

    Interesting to see that none of the commenters on his site agree with him…

  5. I tried to start a debate, but he cut me off sharpish.

    Basically he’s saying that saving is A Bad Thing, and tax relief on any form of saving is a subsidy. In other words, not taking away your money is a subsidy … the man’s barking.

  6. Posted this. No doubt it’ll be censored.

    “If you’re against ‘subsidised’ savings and pensions, then I gather you’re in favour of abolishing employer contributions to state workers, including members of the TUC?”

  7. Murphy makes the staggering claim that not being taxed is equivalent, identical even, to a subsidy or grant.
    So how about a tax on anyone calling themselves ‘Richard Murphy’ – maybe a flat £10k/yr. I’m sure he’ll agree to it, what with his hatred of subsidies.

Leave a Reply

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