Ritchieism of the day from @richardjmurphy

Quite gorgeous:

A 50% tax rate is not only a temporary measure to raising revenue, it is an essential part of a just taxation system.

And I am well aware that the likes of the Digby Jones argue that if we have such a tax rate talent will lead this country. Let’s be clear about this though: that’s not talent that’s leaving, that is greed that is leaving.

Those who would leave this country in pursuit of monetary gain have such distorted value systems that their prospect of generating value for the rest of us is remote in the extreme. They make money by trading, by exploiting markets, by taking risk from which they receive the upside and we bear the downside, and they do so by cheating, even if they can defend it legally. We are best off without them.

The reality is real entrepreneurs are the people who have a genuine passion to make goods and  to supply services that meet people’s needs. They are not put off by taxation:  real entrepreneurs are motivated by the desire to do something well that fulfils a real demand from their fellow human beings.

This from the man who describes himself as an entrepreneur for having brought us the European packaging for Trivial Pursuit via the well known corporate tax haven of Ireland.

Ho hum.

70 thoughts on “Ritchieism of the day from @richardjmurphy”

  1. But he’s right though, isn’t he? Why attack the man for saying the truth?

    Are you bitter? You seem utterly fixated with him. It’s almost aspergic in its intensity.

    Tim adds: No, he’s not right. I myself am an entrepreneur and I most certainly take tax into account when deciding what to do where.

  2. No, Arnald, dear, he is not right. He is a weapons grade bell-end; so, indeed are you.

    Pecunia non olet.

  3. Off topic but I note that the “bond strike” you were getting excited about a month or so again doesn’t seem to have happened, with even PIMCO apparently still holding them.

  4. I agree wholeheartedly with Arnald – Entrepreneurs don’t want to make money, they want to help their fellow human beings. Yes, of course that’s right. Look at Dragon’s Den – none of the people there, investors or entrepreneurs, have the faintest interest in money – the program is all about which invention will do the greatest social good.

  5. “that is greed that is leaving”

    How can it be greedy to want to keep more than half the money you earn for yourself?!

  6. It’s not a 50% rate, as always, because there is Employer’s NI (13% ish) and VAT (20%) on top, if you are in a VATable industry. (VAT is levvied on the NI as well as income tax and wages.)

    Nominal Pay Increment £1.00
    Income Tax Rate 50% £0.50
    NI Rate 14% £0.14
    VAT 20% £0.23
    Cost of Employment £1.37
    Take-Home £0.50
    Tax Paid £0.87
    Percent Tax 63.5%

    (Rough numbers, not even mentioning duties)

    So argue that a 50% tax rate is fair, by all means – just remember that by doing so you are asking for a 13% cut in taxes.

  7. View from the Solent

    But if those on high earnings leave, that means the median income of the remainder will fall. So the figure of 60% of the median income will fall, and fewer children will be living in poverty. Hurrah!

  8. Arnald and Joseph

    If we can agree that entrepreneurs really just want to help people, then letting people keep more of their own, earned money will let them help more people, won’t it? And, ex ante, letting people keep more of their own, earned money will encourage more individuals to take the decision to try to help others instead of sticking at the day job, don’t you think?

  9. I believe Joseph was being sarcastic.

    As for you Arnald, what point is there talking about how nice things could/should be when they’ll never reflect reality?

    Put another way, remove all those greedy people and you’ll just hurt the most vulnerable among us, your good intentions would end up harming most of us.

  10. So we fine people 50% of the things they do for society and think we wont harm society.

    There’ only one tax that aligns what the state does with what the value it accrues to people and that’s the LVT.

  11. Arnald: does Ritchie provide his nuggets of wisdom for free, or does he get wopping great grants from unions and left leaning think tanks to do so? Given his only costs are a PC, internet access and a printer, I reckon he COULD provide exactly the same service for minimum wage at most.

    Who exactly is being greedy here?

  12. Ben

    You seem to be confusing several entirely different forms of taxation.

    50% is the marginal tax rate on high-earning individuals. At that level, National Insurance is only 2%. These are the only taxes relevant to the point being made.

    Employers NI at that level is 13.8%, but is not a tax on the individual (matters of incidence aside) it is a tax on the employer.

    VAT is a tax on consumers/consumption and is entirely irrelevant.

  13. “This from the man who describes himself as an entrepreneur for having brought us the European packaging for Trivial Pursuit via the well known corporate tax haven of Ireland.”

    …and paid royalties to the Canadian owners of Horn Abbot via their company located in Barbados

  14. I think Tim has invented Arnald to generate more comments. He’s probably planning on doing a HuffPo, selling out to a big media giant, and wants to boost his stats first.

  15. Arnald
    Yeah, but Tim, you have no allegiance to the UK. Who cares what you do?

    And yeah 50% over £150K, yeah? If you’re all earning over £150K then you can chomp away all you like. You’ll find that most people aren’t, so what’s your opinion worth?

    SimonB’s comment is the most apt for this blog:
    “Put another way, remove all those greedy people and you’ll just hurt the most vulnerable among us, your good intentions would end up harming most of us.”

    Right, so we should all subsidise the greedy. Because that doesn’t happen already? You think it is a right and proper stance to favour those that want to decrease the standard of living for the majority, because you believe that the benefits of worshipping greed will ultimately lead to a better society.

    Frankly, you believe a society based on subjugating to the takers makes it possib;e for more people to take?

    You need a pschotherapy. That’s some deep seated anti social angst you’ve got going on.

    “Cue more moronicity from Twatnald!”

    I like where you’re coming from?

    Surely Arsenald would be better? And maybe twatbuggery?

    Cure more twatbuggery from that Arsenald!

    You wish, big boy.

    As I said, no imagination, no humanity and no realistic opinion on anything.

    It’s fun here!

  16. Arnald,

    This whole thing about ‘we subsidise the greedy’ is well trodden ground here.

    The facts are as follows:

    The richest 1% of all earners in the UK (i.e. the 50% band) contribute 28% of all tax income to HMRC*. Now, you can say you would like that ratio to be higher or lower, and that’s a legitimate debate, but it is *not* legitimate to say they are subsidised, since the very opposite is clearly the case.

    Similarly, the richest 10% of all earners in the UK (i.e. the 40% band) contribute 58% of all tax income to HMRC*.

    Regardless of the morals you lump onto such a large segment of our country, it is arithmetically unavoidable that, should even one-quarter of them choose to leave, the impact on tax-consumers (i.e. the poor) would be catastrophic.

    Your pious, sanctimonious, evidence-free high minded nievity might sit well at the Fabian Society, but to encourage or applaud a course of action that must inevitable in all cases hurt the pooorest in our society is *not* social democracy. It makes you either mad or bad.

    * http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/income_tax/table2-4.pdf

  17. @theboynoodle

    “Employers NI at that level is 13.8%, but is not a tax on the individual (matters of incidence aside) it is a tax on the employer.”

    I am not “confusing” different taxes, I am demonstrating their collective effect.

    That “matters of incidence aside” is exactly the point.

    Employers NI is nominally levied on the employer, but it is actually levied on what is paid for labour, just as employee’s NI and Income Tax are.

    It doesn’t matter what you call it. A rose by any other name, etc.

    VAT is levied on all outputs and reclaimable on many inputs. Labour is nominally not VATable but the effect is that labour is one of the main things you end up paying VAT on.

    Again, it doesn’t matter what you call it, it IS a tax on labour. In many cases VAT is payable on the labour of people who are below the income tax threshold.

  18. How you can reach the age of 50/60 and still hold such a bizarrely moronic view of human naturecis incredible.

    Not one particle of reality has Richie allowed past his defences in the past 30 years.

  19. Arnald, how exactly are you ‘subsidising’ someone earning 100K plus? They are paying well in excess of 50% of their income to the State who can then p1ss it up against the wall of single mums and drug addicts to their hearts content. Who is subsidising who here?

    And you haven’t answered my question about your Dear Leader Ritchie either.

    @Richard: my thoughts exactly. Surely no-one is that ignorant and persistent? Arnald has to be a construct. Certainly boosting the comments anyway!

    @theboynoodle: if you read on here regularly you should have learnt that the tax burden of employers NI contributions falls almost entirely on the employee. Think about it – when employing someone you have a fixed budget in mind (say £25K). Above that you will lose money by employing them. So work back. Gross salary of c. £22k + 13.6% NI = £25K. Therefore if there was no employers NI you could have increased the salary to £25K straight off. Thus the prospective employee is losing part of his salary in tax, he just never sees it.

  20. Arnald. It is you and people like you that are the reason for me leaving the UK for good back in 2009.

    You think you have the right to take more than half of the money that I earn (no I’m not a banker), that represents the time I’ve had to spend at work rather than being with my family.

    Well, matey boy. You can go fuck yourself in the arse!

    Life is difficult enough without giving 50%+ of my earnings to some dole scrounger, politician or wrapped up as ‘foreign aid’ and handed to some 3rd world despot to buy a new Merc with.

    I’ve moved to a country where they understand the concept of a balanced budget. If there isn’t the money, it can’t be paid for. Equally, they understand that if taxes are too high, then the people who provide the vast bulk of tax income will leave.

    Yes, Yes. I know the old cry of “Skoolz’nOzpitalz”, but since the vast amount of tax I was paying to HM Treasury didn’t cover me when I was out of the UK working, I had to get my own Worldwide Health Cover.

    Equally, the teaching at our local Junior and Infants school was so bad that my poor wife had to spend hours each evening and weekend deprogramming the idiocy that they were pouring into her.

    That’s why we decided enough was enough and moved out of the UK. She now has a private eductation in a developing country (where her mother was born) for less than 1,000 GBP a year and speaks 5 languages at 10-years old. Her maths is also better than mine was at that age, thanks to good Chinese teaching methods and support from my wife.

    This is why the UK is failing. It’s riddled with debt, drains the productive through excessive taxes, follows politically correct, dogmatic practices (PC Teaching on issues like gender equality and warble gloaming instead of maths – For Fucks Sake!).

    Why should I work my arse off everyday to pay for a bunch of toerags to sit at home drinking beer and watching Sky TV?

    Fuck that for a game of soldiers.

    I’ll be back when Satan starts skating to work.

  21. Those who would leave this country in pursuit of monetary gain have such distorted value systems that their prospect of generating value for the rest of us is remote in the extreme. They make money by trading, by exploiting markets, by taking risk from which they receive the upside and we bear the downside, and they do so by cheating, even if they can defend it legally.

    Oh, we do, do we? I was hitherto labouring under the mistaken impression that I made money by managing engineering projects – providing one of those “services that meet people’s needs” – not trading. But what would I know?

  22. Yep, cos that’s the truth eh Galt, toyboy.

    Hmm, maybe you should downsize your ambitions like the rest of have to, ignorant twat.

    It is your right to move if you don’t like it, but don’t go bleating on about it once you’ve moved. It just makes you look like a sobbing cock, all downtrodden by the filth. Greedy bastard.

    Well done for finding your niche, but that’s your story now, not ours.

    And you may like to look at how the Chinese got so good at things. Proud of those ‘non PC’ human rights are you? Fuckwit.

    Jim

    The percentage relationship of tax revenue will never change much, regardless of who goes where. The bigger earners will always look like they’re propping up the country. But is that the whole picture? Do the rich maintain the day to day? Or is there labour involved? I could go on, but it demonstrates that you think society is all about money and not about people.

    It’s a mental illness. You cannot see past your petty hates and skewed personality disorders. You would rather create and banish an underclass and then enslave the rest for your benefit.

    It’s how you all talk. Can’t you see it?

    It’s no wonder you are laughed at by the more intelligent academics.

    You have a massive chip on your shoulder because YOU KNOW DAMN WELL that the ideology is complete shit, and only serves to further your individual interests.

    Like spoilt children.

    To bed!

  23. TN
    Pedantry again. It’s the dull man’s wanking.

    I was talking ideology, not your fucking job.

    You could provide your engineering skills without being a heartless barstard – by supporting these heartless barstards.

    I suppose you’re going to join in the ‘disabled’ thread and laugh at the mentally ill and chronically debilitated.

  24. there is definitely some truth in the view that many entrepreneurs, innovator etc. are not motivated by money. If you are starting out, how much you will be taxed if you ever find yourself earning over £150k will not matter much to many. This is not the same thing as arguing, as Richie does, that only the greedy and unproductive are influenced by tax rates.

    see this

    http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2011/05/on-elasticity-optimism.html

  25. Arnald,

    “The bigger earners will always look like they’re propping up the country. But is that the whole picture? Do the rich maintain the day to day? Or is there labour involved? I could go on, but it demonstrates that you think society is all about money and not about people.”

    The rich don’t *look* like they are propping up the country (financially speaking) they *are* propping up the country financially speaking. My point is not more than the simple arithmetic. There is *no* getting round the fact that Skoolzn’Hospitaz are paid for largely by the rich.

    I think you are hinting that the financial contribution should be discounted, because they don’t “maintain the day to day? Or is there labour involved” but I seriously have no idea what you are talking about. Are you saying that because the typical occupation of the rich is less labour intensive that their tax payments are less valuable? Or that the tax payments of poor people who do volunteering is more valuable? Or that the rich can afford these tax bills ‘cos they are prospering from the sweat of another? Do tell…

  26. You have no idea what I’m talking about because you cannot understand what it is like being poor.

    The rich are not propping up the country. If the labour force striked en masse then the country would grind to a halt.

    Those people that earn a pittance whilst making the country work have NO disposable income after their lower rate tax is deducted. They have no option of ‘tax planning’, no ability to ‘preserve wealth’ and far fewer future prospects. That becomes generational, and is exacerbated by the growing wealth gap. This wealth gap is growing despite the 50%.

    Any true patriot would support a government that meant to redress the fiscal problems. One of thoe weapons needed for that redress is to claw back any tax that is due. Since most of the working and middle classes pay PAYE, the logical step is to reign in the correct taxes from those that are able to use trickery to circumvent their social responsibility.

    Those that pay the 50% are being patriotic. The like of Galt are being self preservationist (but not patriotic, Rand wank). Those that wilfully avoid tax and believe themselves above the nation’s plight are simply financial terrorists. They insist the system should fail, be it because they feel that their contribution is somehow better than someone elses, or by lobbying and succeeding in creating a nation built on pathetic and despicably inept economic theory that has failed the world over.

    People seem so bitter, it’s as if they’ve been sexually abused as children by government ministers, sold into prostitution by a cabal of unemployed teenagers, and had their kidneys stolen by black people.

    Without the workers you rich charlatans are nothing.

    Tim adds:

    “Those people that earn a pittance whilst making the country work have NO disposable income after their lower rate tax is deducted.”

    Quite, that’s why I support, am a member of and have stood for office for a political party whose policy is that the working poor should pay no income tax. Personal allowance should be raised to full year full time minimum wage at least.

    It’s why I work with a think tank which has put forward exactly the same policy.

    The party? UKIP. The think thank? Adam Smith Inst.

  27. Let’s be clear about this though: that’s not talent that’s leaving, that is greed that is leaving.

    Quite Interesting. Are greed and talent exclusive traits? I was not aware that greedy people had no talent.

    The reality is real entrepreneurs are the people who have a genuine passion to make goods and to supply services that meet people’s needs. They are not put off by taxation

    If this is the case then we should all start lobbying for taxes close to or near 100%. This way we can find out just how many ‘real entrepreneurs’ there are in the UK.

    Thanks for sharing these views Tim.

  28. Arnald,
    Re:

    Those people that earn a pittance whilst making the country work have NO disposable income after their lower rate tax is deducted. They have no option of ‘tax planning’, no ability to ‘preserve wealth’ and far fewer future prospects.

    See this article from the FT for examples of tax planning for the poor.

  29. Tim
    0% tax would be unworkable. For that to be palatable the top level of income tax would have to be questionably low. The same think tank would no doubt 0% on CGT, Inheritance and other wealth taxes.

    We would return to pre-victorian times. There would be no affordable services, no affordable world class education, and a constant sense of social unease.

    The rich would be quite happy, completely disconnected.

    Ah yes UKIP via Europe. Credible.

  30. PPS
    “If this is the case then we should all start lobbying for taxes close to or near 100%. This way we can find out just how many ‘real entrepreneurs’ there are in the UK.”

    A typical argument from down the ages….

    like “if you’re such a socialist, give me all your money”

    Bring on Richard Littlejohn. No , please don’t.

  31. Arnald,

    1) why would a 0% tax for the poor be un-workable? Please enlight us with some arguments or facts instead of throwing around statements…

    2) please don’t come with this crap about those of us earning a lot of money owing our wealth to those less well off. I worked my ass off in school and university, worked nights and weekends while in university, am now working 60-80 hour weeks, sleep away 2-3 nights per week, ocasionally spend a month or two away from home. And you are telling me that I should be grateful that the state is taking 50% of my money away ?!?!?

  32. Arnald, perhaps just a minor point, but have I got this right? Those earning in the order of £150,000 and more are talentless, greedy, unpatriotic tax dodger, so we should ensure they pay taxes to “a government that meant to redress the fiscal problems” by taxing them at 50%.

    You are aware that there is a revolving door between government and private industry, aren’t you? Where people move between political posts and private business, in the latter of which they can be seen to earn well over £100,000, generally? And that this door is big enough and spins fast enough to power a substantial town?

    That the people you’re expecting to usher in man’s golden age will before too long end up part of the group you despise so much?

    Also, this:

    “The rich are not propping up the country. If the labour force striked en masse then the country would grind to a halt.”

    True, for a particular definition of ‘propping up’. On the other hand, others have already pointed out the top 1% of earners (those who would be hit by the 50% tax rate) contribute 28% of tax revenue even after what you consider tax-dodging. The current government is struggling to stop spending *growing*, do you honestly believe a proper, actual, real-terms cut of almost 30% will have no impact on the way this country operates?

  33. Niels
    Para 1, no. Only those that leave out of spite.
    People won’t stand by and see their incomes flatlined and reduced in real terms, whilst the rich are given perks to remain…(corp tax etc)

  34. Emil.
    It’s not a question of ‘owing the less well off’. That’s not what taxation is about.

    It’s about ensuring that society is able to improve, so the richer a society becomes then the better the infrastructure to enable more people to become successful.

    By removing oneself from that cycle, it erodes. Conveniently it then becomes a target for a no tax ideology.

    As with the rich thinking themselves above society, those at the bottom (the long term unemployed etc) feel a similar disenfranchisement. At a social construct level, not paying tax enables you to fall into a trap of, well i don’t contribute so why should i care mode of thinking.

    Of course, I may be wrong, but the signifiers are there.

  35. “It’s about ensuring that society is able to improve, so the richer a society becomes then the better the infrastructure to enable more people to become successful.”

    Except that there is very little empirical evidence for the fact that higher taxes lead to what you say it leads to…

  36. [email protected]
    I don’t know what you are talking about because you are ranting. It was a straightforward clarification question, and you are off on one about how rich I am (when you know nothing about me and in fact my 1960s upbringing in the slums of the Glasgow Gorbals qualifies me as having an intimate understanding of what it means to be poor).

    But I *think* what you are saying in later posts is that therich depend on the poor for their labour to actually *run* (not fund) basic services. If that *is* what you are saying, then I agree. But that is a very different position from your opening stance, which was that the rich were being subsidised, which remains provably rubbish.

  37. ‘Let’s be clear about this though: that’s not talent that’s leaving, that is greed that is leaving.’

    It really doesn’t matter if they’re talented or greedy, they’ve still left. Meaning that you have less people employed to produce the same tax take.

    So you ratchet up the top rate, (because hitting the lower paid won’t produce anything near the required amount), so more of the greedy leave etc ..

    So you gradually cleanse the country of the greedy, at the expense of continually reducing the Government’s ability to pay for public services. Until you can spend virtue, you better hope the greedy stay put.

  38. I was talking ideology, not your fucking job.

    And unless you are Ritchie, I wasn’t addressing you. Look at whose words I was quoting.

    Or perhaps…Anyone reckon this idiot is Ritchie?

  39. Arnald,

    ah, so those who have earn $150,000 or more the ‘right way’, by having talent, being patriotic, show altruism, and staying in this country should be rewarded by having a 50% tax rate chucked at them. Wait, what?

    “People won’t stand by and see their incomes flatlined and reduced in real terms”

    I assume you’re talking about less well-off people here. But, if it’s OK to expect rich people to donate 50% of their income for the good of the state/nation, why are the less well-off allowed to grumble about stagnating wages when they are already allowed to keep 80%. Don’t they care? Those greedy poor!

    “It’s about ensuring that society is able to improve, so the richer a society becomes then the better the infrastructure to enable more people to become successful.”

    Fine in theory, where we disagree is that you seem to believe that only the state (ie government spending) can improve society.
    And is therefore entitled to any and all tax it deems necessary.
    Whereas I prefer to believe government is as fallible, and frankly venal, as any other group of people, and that rather more improvement comes from individual invention, innovation, and simple hard work, so I prefer governments to tax only to pay for those essentials which won’t be maintained any other way, and to structure that tax so as to maintain the incentives for this invention, innovation and hard work.

  40. I think (slightly off-topic, perhaps) that Arnald is a wonderful invention by someone. He is obviously a cyber-creation, that rare thing, a virtual arsehole, whereas his hero Ritchie is clearly a real one, bought and paid for, and honed to his present pristine state with the hard efforts of serial tax havens/dodges/schemes and loopholes.

    I also suspect that Arnald may well be a composite; the product of a committee dedicated to the promulgation of hopelessly retarded group-think; in other words, a Labour Party (or worse) butt-plug.

    It must be a committee (perhaps of Public Safety) simply because the spelling rather reminds one of the latest releases of the Gordon Broon memoranda.

  41. Niels
    I understand your last point.

    Contrary to my deliberate attention seeking, I don’t believe the state can deliver everything for everyone. Without people sticking their neck out and bouncing around in a market, I am in total agreement that innovation would be far slower, and so leading to a stagnation of talent.

    Of course we need those that aspire for something *outside* of the social mediocrity. For society has to be mediocre, to encompass the majority.

    But excesses, and the breaks given, to those that *think* that they are giving society a better deal need to be more thoroughly vetted.

    For instance, the finance industry failoed abysmally. It was allowed to do so by the same blinkered faith in ‘human nature at the edge’ philosophy that has engulfed our industrial and political policy makers.

    Private enterprise DOES need to be attracted to a jurisdiction in order for economic growth there. But does it have to include those that are so totally disconnected to reality, that they would risk economic meltdown (in finance’s instance) or those that will profit from a sell off of a continents fertile lands to the highest bidder?

    Surely the correct way to praise those that drive their entrepreneurial success and create genuine wealth and employment is by it being openly acknowledgable that their efforts are socially tangible.

    No one has to be restricted, but only international cooperation can be a framework for the true global entrepreneur to really benefit as much as they think they may like to.

  42. Arnald, I know what’ll incentivize the entrepreneurs: gongs and a big picnic in their honour. The order of lenin or something similar

  43. Tim N: “Or perhaps…Anyone reckon this idiot is Ritchie?”

    Style of ‘debate’ is pure Ritchie. Same words, same flow. Words like ‘pedantry’. Accusing anyone who disagrees with him as ‘heartless’ etc. Same babbled philosphy where everyone is either ‘rich’ or ‘poor’.

    OK, the language is on occasions fruitier, but same abusive tone.

    If it ain’t him, it is someone who writes just like him. Really. Just like him.

    Plus you need someone sitting at home with time on his hands. And given the his micromanagement of his own site, Ritchie has enough time on his hands to make his own coal…

  44. Its got to be Ritchie, or someone under his direction, cos he’s completely ignored (twice) my dig about how much money Ritchie gets in from all his grants and union funded ‘reports’.

    Tim adds: Ah, no. My belief is that Arnald is a construct. Several different people. For the language being used, the grammar, spelling, logic, changes between different posts.

    But hey, that’s fine. Free speech is free speech, even if the free speakers don’t have the courage to reveal their real names. There are, after all, times and places when to reveal who is really pissing of those in power is seriously dangerous.

    Not here is there such a danger but, *shrug*, I support the right of people to be objectionable, I even support the right of people to be stupid. As long as there’s no libel, no incitement to violence post your comments away.

    Err, yes, I am different from Ritchie, who couldanode?

  45. Arnald,

    Couple of questions, if you don’t mind.

    At a social construct level, not paying tax enables you to fall into a trap of, well i don’t contribute so why should i care mode of thinking.

    Have you ever met anyone like that?
    In all honesty. I never have. Never.

    Private enterprise DOES need to be attracted to a jurisdiction

    From where?

  46. For instance, the finance industry failoed abysmally.

    If you do the sums, it produced something like 10 years of sustained growth followed by a reversal of the last 3-4 years. In other words, a net gain of 6-7 years growth. I bet the cost/gain to the taxpayer is billions upon billions in the black, too. Most of the complaints about the finance industry over the last 2 years is akin to complaining that the goose that laid you golden eggs over the last decade has just shit in your hand.

  47. Tim Newman,

    What the left currentky call ‘finance’ is probably in fact shorthand for ‘capitalism.

    Finance/capitalism typically grows for around a decade, but then ‘gives back’ 1-2 years of that growth during a recession. So it ‘only’ really gave us 8-9 years of growth. Big deal (structurally/systemically speaking).

    Then, once every generation or so, we don’t get a recession – we get a depression. So instead of giving back 1-2 years, we give back 5 years or so. This is the point we are at now. For those without perspective, this is an ‘abysmal failure’. For those with a sense of history, it is a personal catastrophy for those affected, but inconsequential (structurally/systemically speaking) in choosing an economic structure, since we are all *radically* better off than we were (although not necessarily more equal).

  48. Gary, you are right but let us also remember what the ‘other option to capitalism’ has given each and every time it has been tried:
    – no recessions, no sudden depressions but just a slow gradual grind downwards into poverty …

    (And BTW, the governments were as much to blame for the financial crisis as the ‘private sector’ it was after all Clinton who created the sub-prime segment through their housing programs and their support to Freddie Mac and FannyMae)

  49. Emil,
    agreed, and that is whay I said that, despite the relatively minor losses, we are *radically* better off.
    To moan about these setback is – in a structural sense – petty, small minded, bounded and out of perspective.

  50. “Petty, small minded, bounded and out of perspective”

    Sums up the Left pretty well then. Only missed out dictatorial.

  51. Are you lot blind?

    To say that the last crash was a blip…?

    Tell that to the hundreds of thousands that have to lose their jobs because of your pompous friends.

    You really, really don’t give a shit about the country. I bet half of you don’t even live in the UK. Let alone pay any tax there.

    No folks, finance is finance. An industry apart from the ideals of capitalism. Surely your borrowed theories tell you this?

    It was the finace industry that caused the devastating, country ruining crash. I was working in an institution that had the like of [a cock’s] loans from Kaupthing kicking about in Trust. I received the phone call of [one of them’s] stupid crying voice asking to speak to his manahger in order to further hide the detail.

    It was a widespreaqd barrel of shit, completely bailed out by the poor with no apparent reparation.

    You may be rich enough to laugh it off, or blame fucking Clinton (how sad is that really, have you ever worked in finance, you know, properly, not sitting about getting paid for having a contacts book), 99.9% of the world is not.

    You claim to ‘care for the well-being’ of folk. I rest my sodding case.

    Newman

    The figure you pretend is alot, is in fact a lot less than it should have been. The generous concessions by governments to let tax abuse slide is always forgotten. You have no idea of the loss to revenue that finance tricked out of the public purse.

    I was working in a multinat bank that paid less than 5% of its profits in tax.

    Work out the loss over thirty years.

    PPS

    Perhaps those “workshy scroungers”. Perhaps the likes of those twats like Guy Hands and Digby Jones, who abhor the UK and want to turn it into some workhouse for profit. The Bankers clubs? Angela fucking Knight.

    You name it, those who don’t pay tax couldn’t give a shit. That’s why Worstall’s so inane. It’s so easy to dream up socially destructive rhetoric, when the society has nothing to do with you.

    as for your second question……erm weren’t we talking tax competition.

    It follows that if a jurisdiction is existant solely on a tax rate, then it becomes an inefficient medium for real tax incentivisation. It isn’t real. It serves no purpose but to bleed money away from the real business of investing in progress.

    A cancer, if you will, on real business that improves lives.

    Oh and I have to blush at your amusing past-time of guess the Arnald.

    Idiots. Aren’t I allowed to be an individual in your world? Do I have to copy or be constructed?

    Dear oh dear. The delusions of grandeur run deep. (pssst I stick by my concerns over your collective mental health, but it’s ok, I know it’s taboo to be ‘nuts’ where you come from.)

    Tim adds: “To say that the last crash was a blip…?”

    In the long run even the Great Depression was a blip. When you plot out GDP per capita over the last thousand years or so you get pretty much a straight line until about 1790 or so. Then it starts to soar. The Depression is a little squiggle either side of that trend line. Below it in the 1930s, above it in the 1950s.

    The bit of economics I’m interested in, the bit I write about, is what causde that soaring, not what causes the squiggles either side of it. And what worries me about many others is that they worry much more about the squiggles than they do the trend. Indeed, that they’ll permanently reduce the trend in order to (try, but fail) to eliminate the squiggles.

  52. Arnald,

    “To say that the last crash was a blip…?”

    It was a blip – look at the statistics

    “Tell that to the hundreds of thousands that have to lose their jobs because of your pompous friends.”

    I feel for those who lost their jobs, do you feel for the millions that would go into real and constant poverty if we were to do as you propose?

    BTW, feelings and intentions dfìon’t count, results do

    “To say that the last crash was a blip…?

    Tell that to the hundreds of thousands that have to lose their jobs because of your pompous friends.”

    I agree that the bailout was stupid but that was a decision of government. How can the solution to government making bad decisions be to give government more power and control?

    “You may be rich enough to laugh it off, or blame fucking Clinton ”

    No one is laughing it off, we just have different opinions about who was to blame and what to do about it

    “I was working in a multinat bank that paid less than 5% of its profits in tax.”

    5% of something is more than 100% of nothing

    “It follows that if a jurisdiction is existant solely on a tax rate, then it becomes an inefficient medium for real tax incentivisation. It isn’t real.”

    I repeat, tax is a very real cost to businesses (and people). You can argue that the benefits of the services you receive after having paid that tax outweight the cost but to claim that tax is not a cost is ridiculous.

    “It serves no purpose but to bleed money away from the real business of investing in progress.”

    The less tax businesses pay the more money they have to invest in progress. To claim that only government can invest in progress is again ridiculous

  53. Tim
    Growth is not sustainable in this form. There is not enough reinvestment and there is too much take at the top.

    To think otherwise is to ignore reality.

    Emil

    I’m afraid those arguments are facile. You think Southern Cross reinvested? Do you think any of the top companies perform at top efficiency by reinvesting to create new money? Or do they use their companies as financial instruments to recycle their cash to squeeze more out of the real economy.

    It’s piffle. And tosh. Much more progress could have been made if individual profit was not a primary driver. And share price led strategy is a major fallacy: it hides all manner of operational problems. Utterly inefficient. Anyhoo, your worst comment is the 5% of something one.

    I’d imagine 28% of something is better than 5% of something, wouldn’t you?

    And who is advocating poverty?

    Who said that? That’s youor febrile imagination and basically an embarrassment of an argument

  54. Arnald,

    You reply was so predictable (because it is indeed Ritchie-esque) that I purposesfully hightlighted the distinction “it is a personal catastrophy for those affected, but inconsequential (structurally/systemically speaking) in choosing an economic structure.”

    You then go on to tell me that I haven’t thought about the thousands affected, when the words say *exactly* that.

    Either you are not reading the replies or you are deliberately raising straw men. Neither is a good look.

  55. “Do you think any of the top companies perform at top efficiency by reinvesting to create new money? Or do they use their companies as financial instruments to recycle their cash to squeeze more out of the real economy.”

    I’m afraid I do not understand what this means. (And I’ve read it more than once)

    “Much more progress could have been made if individual profit was not a primary driver.”

    No, for you see that is exactly what lead to Cuba, the DDR, the Soviet Union, Khmer Rouge, the Viet Cong, The Peoples Republic of China (before liberalisation and Chavez Venezuela. Again, this has been tried and tested and always lead to exterme poverty and lack of freedom.

    “I’d imagine 28% of something is better than 5% of something, wouldn’t you?”

    Depends on how big something A is and how big something B is. You know the Laffer curve thing.

    “And who is advocating poverty?”

    You are advocating policies that we know lead to poverty (see above)

  56. Laffer curve nonsense. Fallacy.

    I haven’t said anything about emulating your list. That’s not evidence of anything. It’s just a list of totalitarian regimes.

    By the way, there are more prisoners in the US per head than anywhere else. Freedom. Yeah.

    Social responsibility is not the same as state aqcuisistion, why can’t you fanatics and extremists see the difference?

  57. “Laffer curve nonsense. Fallacy.”

    Great, so the Laffer curve doesn’t exist?

    “I haven’t said anything about emulating your list.”

    Yes, you have advocated the principle the economy being more efficient if there are no profits. That’s exactly what was (is) believed also in these regimes.

    “By the way, there are more prisoners in the US per head than anywhere else. Freedom. Yeah.”

    Yes, I agree with you that the US war on drugs is stupid and bad and should be stopped. So what?

    “Social responsibility is not the same as state aqcuisistion, why can’t you fanatics and extremists see the difference?”

    It is if you are being forced to contribute.

  58. How many prisoners are there in China? Does anyone know?
    We *do* know that there are very large numbers – or don’t Tibetans, Uighurs, Christians, political dissidents count?
    Seeking to avoid top rate tax does not prove that one is totally greedy and heartless – I used Gift Aid to avoid paying higher rate tax because I was disgusted by the misuse of government revenue by Brown.

  59. Pingback: FCAblog » Winner and 7th most influential left-wing thinkers demonstrate their ignorance over business taxation

Leave a Reply

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