And I candidly think that the proposals to increase consultation are anti-democratic and will result in significant bias in UK tax legislation. There are three reasons. First, to be consulted you need to be have the time available to take part without being paid. Only the rich and their agents can do that.
It would appear that £35k a year from the Joseph Rowntree peeps just isn\’t enough to keep a retired accountant in the style to which he wishes to become accustomed:
First, if there is to be consultation then it must be broadly representative and positively seek to be so. If necessary that means that payment must be made to those taking part. Second, parliament must have resources to commission its own reviews of legislation.
So Ritchie should be paid your and my money so as to inflict upon us his ideas of how he can take more of your and my money?
And note that second little bit, resources to commission……what this means is that Caroline Lucas and Chuka Umunna should be able to shovel even more of our tax money Ritchie\’s way.
Me, I suggest we reinvigorate that age old difference between \”making a living\” and \”public service\”. Otherwise known as \”if you want to try and inflict your prejudices upon us, do it on your own dime matey\”.
There is an alternative: Ritchie could become a parliamentary aide to one of those who like the cut of his jib. There are allowances for such things.
Although, it does have to be said, the screw is a great deal worse than what a retired accountant from Wandsworth might feel is fitting for one of his eminence.