Two from Ritchie:
There has been some publicity over the last few days about H M Revenue & Customs having secured the names of 500,000 people in this country who have offshore bank accounts.
Interesting number. OK.
How come HMRC has 500,000 names of tax evaders but there\’s been no action?
What is the link between having an offshore bank account and being a tax evader?
For example, it is in fact possible to both have an offshore acount and declare for tax purposes the income received into it.
It\’s even possible to be a Brit, with an offshore account, and not actually owe any UK tax. As some of the 5.5 million Brits who don\’t live in the UK most definitely are not.
Even, lots of them who have gone abroad to work, come back, but left their money offshore.
What bugs is this immediate insistence that the mere existence of an offshore account must mean tax evasion.
If you are resident but either not ordinarily resident or non domiciled then you may well not owe any tax anyway.
“What bugs is this immediate insistence ..”: but we are all agreed that he’s a stupid bugger.
There must be more than 500,000 foreigners in the Uk with “offshore bank accounts”, and more than another 500,000 who own property in france, spain etc, and also have “offshore bank accounts.” I can’t bear to click to his site anymore, so won’t check, but it seems even more (even more!) dim than usual.
If you taxed Government created Property Rights (Land, CopyRights and Patents) instead of incomes then this would be no problem.
Anyone who does not pays all the tax that they should are avoiders. Anyone who avoids tax is an evader.
Don’t forget also that Richard Murphy is someone who is ruled by his heart not his head. I doubt that there is anything in his head. Probably explains why he didn’t go through with his economics course when he was at college.
But how do you know they are not evading tax? There are no means to tell. So whilst you bleat about ‘stupidity’ and of course they can’t surely be tax dodging, evidence is all around that accounts help offshore have been widely used for evasion.
Why don’t you get that? Until is there is full exchange of information and full transparancy in the financial markets there will always be criminality.
The rhetoric off this site is far more swivel-eyed on almost every subject. Call yourself an economist (“Tim Worstall is a darn good economist”- Don Boudreaux)? Where has your idiocy brought us, Mr Worstall. You offer no solutions, only pith and a chapioning of a failed ideology.
Look around you for christ’s sake
Oh yeah, you’re in Portugal. D’oh!
Oh and I write from offshore and have worked for a decade in the industry. There is no proving illicit fund movements because quasi intellectuals like Worstall demand that the rich use every possible means to seprate wealth from the real economy to the pockets of the few, INSISTING that it is a good thing.
You know nothing about reality.
Arnald, the problem is that you are operating from a basic logical fallacy:
1. evading taxes is a crime
2. People use off shore accounts to evade taxes
3. therefore all people with offshore accounts are criminals.
You might as well say all dogs have four legs, my cat has four legs, therefore my cat is a dog.
As far as there being “no means to tell” well the fact that this story has been published has proven that statement to be wrong. HMRC has numerous means of telling including exchange of information under TIEAS, notices under the tax laws, and perhaps even writing to people whose names they have and making them pay thier taxes.
Fortunately allegations are not admissible as evidence in a court of law.
Arnald, welcome. Anyone who can coin “pith and chapioning” is a good egg.
But do slow down and read. No-one said they can’t be evading taxes, only that it’s crazy to assume they all are.
And I think we’d all agree that there will always be criminality in the financial system, including AFTER there is full “transparancy” etc – it’s where the money is.
But a little humility would help – we can take your decade and match it twice and three times over. The bile and hysterics are fine – they only sting when you respect the person spewing them out.
Liquidate the kulaks as a class
‘Quasi intellectuals’. That must sting.
If there are 500,000 tax evaders, we better get started building some more jails.
Current prison population as at April 2011 is around 85,000, with capacity of 87,000. We’re well short.
Like Worstall is humble!
“No-one said they can’t be evading taxes, only that it’s crazy to assume they all are.”
So why doesn’t the system promote transparency and end the argument. The idea that secrecy (TIEAs don’t work) is necessary for the global finance system to operate is piffle. Demonstrably, as reporting on hundreds of cases since the meltdown proves.
Therefore, even it is up to the institutions to ACTIVELY pursue lines of investigation, making compliance the most important arm of the business (rather than a school leaver ticking boxes for £8 an hour): it should not be the responsibility of the State to pick apart the mess caused by the convenient relationships between finance and criminality.
Economic theory will always be subverted by those that bend the rules for their own gain. That is why the free market can only work if it is a level playing field. Commentators like Worstall deliberately promote inequality, and so therefore promotes the facilitation of th criminality. Only enforcing transparency and after an overwhelming and overarching crackdown on corruption, can the real economy begin to trust the actions of those who purport to be wealth generators.
Oh, and I read somewhere that Worstall believes that if you divide the global “wealth” globally then it comes to $5K each – and that’s not enough – so we need to generate more…..forgive me for chewing my own arm off, but this is precisely the weasel words of a sociopath trying to justify the inequalities and paucity of thinking the top quarter percent.
Tim adds: You read wrong then. Global GDP is about £5,000 per capita, yes. £, not $. And GDP is not wealth. GDP is a flow, not a stock. So, is this enough? If we divided the produce of the world equally among all, we’d all have £5,000 a year to live off. And yes, that includes everything that the State provides, the NHS, education, gender diversity advisors and all.
We have £5k each to pay for everything. Housing, clothes, food, government, health care, education…..do you think that’s enough? Or do you think that perhaps the world might be a better place if everyone had more than that? I think the world would be a better place if everyone had more than that which is why I suggest that we might want to increase world GDP and thus make it possible for everyone to have more than that.
You’ll forgive me if I fail to see anything sociopathic in that though.
“That must sting.” That must sting.
Arnald, you’re spelling’s improved, but your thinking hasn’t, and the bile is still, well, a bit spartish, a bit limp.
I like the one about the free market being a level playing field. That’s good – like a pitch invasion, I suppose. And the idea that economic theories either don’t or don’t have to (not specially clear, that bit) take account of people’s tendency to bend the rules for their own gain, as if that weren’t principle 1.
Anyway, keep it up. Shorter and quieter helps, but suit yourself.
AC1, property rights are not “Government created”; they are, just like the right to life, intrinsic in the human condition. Government exists, inter alia, to protect them (although, of course, Government is generally too busy doing other things).
There are some very good reasons why we don’t want complete transparency in financial markets. Basically it comes down to
1) us not trusting the blithering fools who are in government, alas we don’t want them to know too much about us
2) we sort of tend to believe that our money is sort of ours and not the government’s
“Tim adds: You read wrong then. Global GDP is about £5,000 per capita, yes. £, not $. And GDP is not wealth. GDP is a flow, not a stock. So, is this enough? If we divided the produce of the world equally among all, we’d all have £5,000 a year to live off. And yes, that includes everything that the State provides, the NHS, education, gender diversity advisors and all.”
I got the $ quote elsewhere, and I was wrong about the GDP/wealth. Either way, you seem to believe that GDP is somehow global, then? Do you think that if GDP rose in say the US, then those in Burkina Faso would benefit? It’s a pointless use of numbers that offers no evidence that increasing GDP from the point of view of allowing those that are already wealthy off the backs of others to get richer, whilst the employees and those within the catchment of production/extraction of resources are made less rich. (globally – where does is the flow sourced from and where does it go?) It’s idiotic and unreal.
It hasn’t happened, it doesn’t happen, it won’t happen. It’s the wrong approach.
Tim adds: Erm, yes, global GDP is global. That’s what the word “global” means. You know, global?
And I’ve not said that I specifically want US GDP to rise so as to benefit those in Burkina Faso. In fact, I’ve often made entirely the opposite argument. That it’s possible that globalisation is hindering, in part, GDP growth in the rich countries. But even if it is doing so, globalisation is making formerly poor countries richer. Which is a good thing and thus so is globalisation.
I’m sure I’ve lots of opinions that you really would find objectionable so why not try to find them instead of ranting at me about things I don’t actually believe?
“1) us not trusting the blithering fools who are in government, alas we don’t want them to know too much about us
2) we sort of tend to believe that our money is sort of ours and not the government’s”
1) Which is why those private individuals hiding behind corporations had to be bailed out globally for a score of $TR and they still don’t know the value of anything. Well fucking played.
2)The governments portion is the democratically mandated tax. That tax is (supposedly) set to deliver the infrastructure in order to maximise opportunities for the wider well being and future prosperity of the country. Hide it if you wish, but that will only lend fuel to the accusations that you are hiding something illicit. My precioussss
Economic theory is ideological, not scientific. You either believe that the market should benefit the majority, or increase the wealth of the minority. The latter has taken root in skulls such as those that hold the vacant eyes of posters in here, and made a complete balls up of things.
There isn’t really a middle way, as proven by the failure of New Labour.
Surely more people becoming rich at a slower rate would work best? Obviously, before you answer, and how can that be achieved with little states and little regulation, surely a hingepin of Worstall’s lunacy?
Is “level playing field” to hard an analogy?
Arnald – you’re boring
That tax is (supposedly) set to deliver the infrastructure in order to maximise opportunities for the wider well being and future prosperity of the country.
Is it? Who said it was? I don’t agree that’s the purpose of government and tax, and plenty agree with me. I think you’re mistaking your own ideological assumptions for facts. Try thinking harder. Expand your mind.
Is “level playing field” to hard an analogy?
For someone who can’t tell the difference between “to” and “too” it’s quite a step to such an analogy. Well done. The rest of us who actually have knowledge, expertise and reasoning see that analogy for the trite thing it is.
I am not sure where Arnald has got the idea that Tim (or myself or many others) believe that the market should favour the minority (and/or wealthy)
I thought his posting on Oxfam was absolutely clear that that worries him is true poverty in truly poor countries and, this seems to be the contentious bit, that it is the markets (by markets I mean trading, commerce not the financial markets alone) which are dragging the truly poor out of poverty.
Nowhere, on this blog have I ever seen Tim advocating more wealth exclusively for the rich. Only more wealth for everybody, and particularly the poor.
However, I have a sneaking suspicion…
I am probably one of Ritchie’s 500,000. I resent the near libellous assertion that I am a criminal.
I along, with many others declared to HMRC that I had an offshore account when all this crap started a few years ago. It doesn’t mean that I don’t pay the full amount of tax that I should (even if it grips my shit to do so).
Arnald, I have no interest in how rich somebody else is. I am foremost interested in me, followed by the genuinely poor. If you look at one of the posts from a few days ago, you will see how drastically real poverty has reduced in recent decades. I’m not saying that improvents can’t be made, but I doubt that taxing the wealthy more and increasing regulation more will have the desired effect.
Removing barriers that prevent poor countries form selling us their products would be of massive benefit to them in my opinion (a level playing field there for you). I know to our eyes that the pay and conditions in alot of these countries looks bad, but unless they are forced into it, then they must see it as better than the alternative.
And why do you consider that somebody who is wealthy is like that from the backs of others? I (and probably yourself) would be considered wealthy in the eyes of alot of the world. I do it from my own back, nobody elses.
Glad to read that secrecy in the financial system is un-necessary, so please post details of your bank, account number (s), balance(s), outstanding mortgage and any other personal financial information you would advocate being freely exchangeable.
Couldn’t agree more on economic theory being subverted by parties for their own gain. One look at the retired accountant’s blog is all the proof one needs of this.
Struggling to understand how ‘promoting’ inequality (whatever that means) must equate to facilitating criminality, but that’s some big words, so it might be lost on me.
I would envisage some difficulty in punishing the wealth creators (who if I understand you correctly, you don’t trust, and must have come to their wealth as a result of ‘inequalities’) and expecting those wealth creators put their back into generating additional wealth so everybody could have a bit more. Or maybe we could just redistribute the wealth they already have. I guess Mugabe’s approach would learn ’em to be successful.
I also think you’re identifying £ 5,000 per annum as being insufficient to meet your own cost of living, rather than looking at the bigger picture. I could have hot and cold running whores feeding me gold plated truffles whilst wallowing in a big bath of money in some places in the world for that. The trouble with making everyone a millionaire is that who would want to cut the liquorice grass in my floating ginger bread mansion for 20p an hour ?
The reality is that demand meets supply at something called the market price. If you alter one of those variables, it automatically alters the others. If you can demonstrate that you understand the implications of that, the big boys might play a bit nicer with you.
And why do you consider that somebody who is wealthy is like that from the backs of others?
I assume that’s a rhetorical question. With Arnald we have a genuine (student?) lefty who takes as axiomatic that ‘right wingers’ eat babies, are out the kill everyone, and that all one needs to do to help the poor is attack the rich.
When he grows up and gets some experience of the world (particularly after he’s been on the receiving end of the state powers he clamours for) he’ll obtain a bit more wisdom and change his mind. Until then, it’s useless arguing with him: his mind is utterly closed.
“For someone who can’t tell the difference between “to” and “too” it’s quite a step to such an analogy. Well done. The rest of us who actually have knowledge, expertise and reasoning see that analogy for the trite thing it is.”
Pedants are great. As are typos.
But why is it trite? The market works best when anyone can access it and any one can assess its ability to deliver. If it is skewed in favour of whoever, it ceases to become an efficient model, and the resources and capital do not go where they are needed.
But hey, why let real life get in the way of posturing?
It was taxation that provided me with the infrastructure I needed to develop. Was it for you, Kay Tie?
“I am probably one of Ritchie’s 500,000. I resent the near libellous assertion that I am a criminal.”
You will note that Murphy has said it was an HMRC source that said the 500K was the number of evaders.
C’mon, everbody–this “Arnald” ain’t real, cantchatell? It’s just Richard Murphy playing a juvenile version of himself (to avoid having to make actual grown-up arguments).
I gotta hand it to him on this one, though–he played it on y’all mighty slick.
“1) Which is why those private individuals hiding behind corporations had to be bailed out globally for a score of $TR and they still don’t know the value of anything. Well fucking played.”
They didn’t have to be bailed out. The governments you trust so much decided that it was better to bail them out than not to bail them out. I criticized this at the time, as did Tim if I remember correctly, and I still believe that it was a bad decision.
“2)The governments portion is the democratically mandated tax. That tax is (supposedly) set to deliver the infrastructure in order to maximise opportunities for the wider well being and future prosperity of the country. Hide it if you wish, but that will only lend fuel to the accusations that you are hiding something illicit. My precioussss”
That is a very optimistic view of what taxes are used for.
‘It was taxation that provided me with the infrastructure I needed to develop.’
Then you profitted from the labour of others, which seems to have skewed the system in your favour. I thought you were against that sort of thing ?
As your no-doubt nemesis was fond of saying, ‘socialism is fine until you run out of other people’s money’
“globalisation is making formerly poor countries richer. Which is a good thing and thus so is globalisation.”
No, in it’s current form it is creating a wider wealth gap, concentrating it to fewer people.
You really believe that, say, a Congolese mine run by a rich country’s multinat is actually distributing its wealth back amongst the Congolese?
This version of globalisation just streams the money out, never to be seen again for any use other than being ‘preserved’ by a few.
How is this hindering the rich countries? Talk about blinkered. And the example is repeated everywhere. My Angolan accounts weren’t Swiss based for nothing.
There is a distinct difference between individual privacy and the ‘sophisticated’ products offered on the tax-dodge facilitation rocks. You surely don’t equate the two? And I’m infantile?
“I also think you’re identifying £ 5,000 per annum as being insufficient”
No, Worstall said that, when trying to imagine a world where wealth generators offer their benevolence for free.
Since when have I clamoured for state control. Private enterprise cannot run infrastructure. Decent public infrastructure increases opportunity and therefore competition. When you go out and meet some real people maybe you’ll learn what being screwed by private enterprise is really like. Unless, of course, you can afford it. That’s hardly the same as your allusion to authoritarianism.
Dear oh dear.
Tim adds: Look, if you’re not going to bother to read the supporting blog posts littered around ehre then why are you bothering?
“No, in it’s current form it is creating a wider wealth gap, concentrating it to fewer people.”
No, it isn’t. Global inequality is falling. Go and read some Sala i Martin, some Branco Milanovic, the people who actually measure global inequality. Both poverty and inequality are falling, which is what leads to rising Sen Welfare.
You are, of course, allowed your own opinions, but not your own facts.
“My Angolan accounts weren’t Swiss based for nothing.”
Angola and Switzerland, eh? You sure you’re not Nick Shaxson?
“Private enterprise cannot run infrastructure.”
Tell that to the American freight railroads, some continental motorway systems, airlines the world over, water companies in England….or do they not count as infrastcture as they’re all run by private companies?
“Then you profitted from the labour of others, which seems to have skewed the system in your favour. I thought you were against that sort of thing ?”
No, by raising more opportunities I have been able to put back into society, and over my life time will be more than I took. FFS
Private enterprise cannot run infrastructure.
Which public ISP did you use to carry that bullshit to my eyes?
“No, in it’s current form it is creating a wider wealth gap, concentrating it to fewer people.”
This is simply wrong
Why should we pay attention to someone who can’t spell ‘Arnold’?
Arnald (#28) said:
“You will note that Murphy has said it was an HMRC source that said the 500K was the number of evaders.”
No, dear boy, do try to keep up.
HMRC say that there are 500,000 with offshore bank accounts.
It was Murphy who said they are all tax evaders.
Arnald’s political recipe for economic success.
1) Liquidate the middle class
Don’t hate, wingnuts!
“Economic theory is ideological, not scientific.”
Then it’s not a theory, it’s a dogma. What I understand by economic theory is an attempt to explain and predict behavior. That then allows you to design ways to shape behavior, and those designs are all values-based, which is what I think you mean by ideological. if you don’t build human nature into your theory (let alone your “ideology”) you have something like communism, not just stupid but doomed to failure, because it doesn’t allow for, let alone encourage, people to be people.
“You either believe that the market should benefit the majority, or increase the wealth of the minority.” on the whole, I believe the market is the market. It just is, and we seek to describe it. Now it should be managed/directed/encouraged/allowed to benefit the majority, yes, we all agree. How: point it in the right direction, think clearly about incentives and disincentives, and stand back.
“The latter has taken root in skulls such as those that hold the vacant eyes of posters in here, and made a complete balls up of things.” Bollocks. Not here, not ever. Read with an open mind and stop ranting.
“There isn’t really a middle way, as proven by the failure of New Labour.” The middle way would be what? – increase wealth moderately for more than a few? Yawn.
“Surely more people becoming rich at a slower rate would work best?” Why not more, richer, faster?
“Obviously, before you answer, and how can that be achieved with little states and little regulation, surely a hingepin of Worstall’s lunacy?” Hingepin? never mind the fucked up grammar, the wonky metaphor and the abuse, all in one little image, for the answer, read more of this blog. people will achieve more wealth for more people, what you say you want and we do too, if you set them free and unburden them of stupid bureaucratic direction.
“Is “level playing field” to hard an analogy?” It’s a cliche, mate, which when mixed with free market becomes a mixed metaphor cliche. if words don’t mean pictures to you stop using analogies completely. If you can’t see what you’re saying, shut up.
i think someone else said it, you’re boring. I can’t believe i’ve just wasted 10 minutes on this.
And you are all not dogmatic? I’ve read what’s on here. You think you are liberal?
““I am probably one of Ritchie’s 500,000. I resent the near libellous assertion that I am a criminal.”
You will note that Murphy has said it was an HMRC source that said the 500K was the number of evaders.”
No he doesn’t. He says that HMRC say they have 500,000 names and then implies that they are all criminals. See the quotes on the original post by Tim
And its mister_choos if you please
“Economic theory is ideological, not scientific.”
Arnald, this is nonsense.
The science of economics attempts to describe how economic systems behave. At the root, it describes the behaviour of people, in the aggregate.
People are fuzzier than, say, protons, so economics is perhaps less exact and authoritative than physics, and I will concede that this fuzziness makes it easier for individual economists to allow their personal biases to preempt the data. Nevertheless, economics itself remains scientific.
The science of economics can’t tell us which outcome to prefer, though. That’s where your dogma comes in. Which is the best outcome – the one that maximizes the well-being of the average person? The one which maximizes the total well-being of all current living people? One that sacrifices some current well-being in favour of better tomorrows? Maybe the one that minimizes the difference in well-being amongst people, or maximizes the well-being of the bottom few percent? How, precisely, does one measure well-being?
Liberals, libertarians, socialists, communists, conservatives and whatever else will provide different answers to these questions, and so draw different conclusions as to what is desirable, but they should be able to agree on the economics.
I hope Arnald appreciates the chance to put accross his views (despite their faults), which is something that his hero Murphy seems unable to do.
Maybe we’ll get the infamous Premier Shareholders Group posting next, and Carol Wlicox droning on about tax on land……
Usually the commenters here at least pass the turing test, I wouldn’t like to see Arnald’s source code.
No, Arnauld, it’s just that you are a dick.
Arnald, are you the fellow who posts long turgid comments at the national Post in Canada proving that AGW is a fact citing endless and utterly idiotic websites? [Pay attention Worstall, AGW is bollocks]
Anyway, I am one of those foul swine with an “offshore” account. I confess to foul, disgusting and evil motives. I’m a rat, a turd, a pustule on the arse of humanity.
I keep about $US1,200.00 at the First National Bank of Montana in Eureka, Montana. I have a cottage 20k north of the American border in the BC backwoods. Occasionally I cross the heavily guarded, over gunned, blood thirsty, savage [etc., etc., et fucking lefty cetera] border to buy groceries from the hillbillies – beer, bacon, arugula, escargots, beer, und so weiter. Often it is convenient and cheaper to use their bank.
Mea culpa, mea culpa, kyrie eleison, Murphy is a dolt.
choosy, if you please, he then reiterates in the comments what he has been told by HMRC
“I can say the story was placed by HMRC with the press
And I can say that they think that the cases are all potentially related to tax evasion – that’s their story, not mine”
Crude sociopathy doesn’t need to be tolerated.
When you are passionate about something, say a blog, then you don’t wanted painted on by morons.
It’s fair enough. Worstall’s game is very different to Murphy’s. Worstall is about kicking people and then offering hopeless one liners as evidence of his intelligence. Citing a failed economic theory and bolting it onto some faux compassion for the poor is a bit shite to say the least.
At least Murphy is out there shouting about it, instead of sniding away.
I mean. Ukip roots and all. It’s not credible.
I see no evidence onf real life. ACTUAL theorising on ACTUAL events. Just pops and squeaks.
Tim adds: “I see no evidence onf real life. ACTUAL theorising on ACTUAL events.”
We’ve been through this before. I own and run a business which makes damn near every street light around the globe work. Our products most certainly end up on all 7 continents and the light we are partially responsible for is one of the few things about humanity that you can actually see from space.
Murphy wibbles on with the aid of a grant from the Joseph Rowntree people.
Talk to me again about real life.
I have been saddened to read through some of the remarks on this thread. It’s summed up, for me, by what mister_choos asked at 25:
“And why do you consider that somebody who is wealthy is like that from the backs of others?”
It seems that some people believe that keeping more of what they earn and having the choice to spend when and how they will is just not enough. There is a simple, yet Incredulous reason for this. Everything is funded by the taxpayer so the taxpayer, via tax collectors, deserve a share of everything.
You may not agree but this seems to be a strongly held view by many. I’m not sure what type of economics is going to sort out this point of view but I get the sense that the economy is never going to get into any sort of fit shape until this attitude is debated at every level of society and a consensus is agreed. I’m not sure that there is any democratic means to sort it out because, it needs a general consensus not just a democratic majority.
@ Ian Bennett – I would say patents are government created property. They only exist once you have specifically applied for one setting out your invention, and the patent office has approved your application. They then only exist for a finite period of twenty years in recognition of the mini-monopoly thereby created.
Copyright and interests in land I agree with you on – they spring from our connection with the thing, and govt only enforces such rights, rather than being the giver and taker away.
@ Arnald. Murphy’s editorial policy doesn’t just cut out the sociopaths, he cuts out virtually all who disagree with him. And those who prove his claims to be wildly inaccurate. Yet he still has the front to moan about freedom of speech and the right wing press.
This view isn’t backed up by the text of the article he links to. It is Murphy who asks, “How come HMRC has 500,000 names of tax evaders but there’s been no action?”
Murphy says that his contact at HMRC says that “the cases are all potentially related to tax evasion”
Well, of course they are. Potentially.
Until they’ve checked whether the account holders are taxable (tax resident and domiciled in the UK), and that the accounts haven’t been declared already, they are “potentially” related to evasion.
Same as a list of anything that hasn’t been taxed at source is “potentially” evasion.
But that’s very different to Murphy saying that these people ARE evaders.
ukliberty (right on)
The supporting text is merely linked to an article to back up the assertion that “there has been coverage”.
The 500K evaders figure was intimated to him by an HMRC source. It says so further down in the comments.
He may of course be bluffing.
I’d take a Murphy bluff over this bumbling, unrealistic guff.
Another thing which annoys me is that as a non-resident Brit with no UK income and no UK tax liabilities (as they have assured me year after year) am still liable to a 100 pound fine if I do not file my return on time.
Any ideas on a suitable PFO response?
“I’d take a Murphy bluff over this bumbling, unrealistic guff.”
That’s not surprising, he’s a stupid cunt and so are you.
Yes, he could be dishonest and/or incompetent.
What do you think is ‘unrealistic’, the claim that 500,000 people with offshore accounts might not be tax evaders?
Yet he gets listened to. All you can do is swear.
Yes, he gets listened to by like minded fuckwits, people such as you for example. People listen to L Ron Hubbard for chrissake. Being listened to is no indication of being correct, the world is full of idiots who will listen to knaves or sincere ignoramuses.
I can do lots of things, including swear. I can also do it grammatically, a skill that eludes you.
Yes ChrisM. Whatever you say. Sociopath through and through.
“It’s my world! Get off!”
I think you’re envious. Your pedantry belies a lack of any credibility. This is a blog posting site, not a fucking academics peer review discussion.
If I choose idiosyncracies when posting on an informal blog then it’s you’re fault for being so obsessed.
This site is friendly to the snide, self-entitled delusionists that believe that the human condition is based upon base values. Every one of the drivers is base.
What if we’ve evolved and the right-minded people want to create a more enlightened society that isn’t based on battering down those already battered down, in order to feel slightly richer?
Oh no, more apoplexy…
If your views are so much better than Murphy’s, get yourself on the radio, maybe become part of a treasury select committee, how about being Wikio’s no 1 Economics Blog? That’s better than your Timmy!
Does that mean there are more ignoramuses listening to him than there are fuckwits listening to Tim ‘Portugal’ Worstall?
So so sad.
You really are a deluded cunt aren’t you. You do not chose idiosyncracies, you spout idiocies. Not only are you wrong, but you a thoroughly boring fucker to boot. You come out with fallacy after fallacy and talk a load of irrelevant bollocks. Some people have accused you of being Murphy in disguise, but I think not, because at least that twat can string a sentence together.
Come on chrisms you can do better than that…
no fallacies when it comes to tax dodging permacocks. Blights on humanity.
It’s only irrelevant because you don’t understand.
Put my input next to yours….
You are a very little man. If you are a man and not some ideological construct made from soya residue.
This thread is absolutely brilliant. Tim, I love this ‘Arnald’ alter ego thing you’re doing.