Jersey\’s zero ten policy approved

The EU code of conduct group has approved Jersey\’s proposed amendments to a tax regime previously deemed \’harmful\’.

Ritchie was adamant that it would not be approved, that it would be found illegal and that the island would go bust.

Wasn\’t he?

32 thoughts on “Jersey\’s zero ten policy approved”

  1. He won’t approve, of course. I wonder how many blogs he’ll write complaining that the EU has caved in on this? Blog count on the Swiss tax deal is about ten, I think…..

  2. In the long lineage of Murphy’s predictions:

    – the zero-ten will be rejected…
    – Osbourne will not be chancellor…
    – the EUSD revision will be imminently accepted….
    – the Swiss-UK tax deal will fail…

    Did he not also say that the 50p tax rate will NOT be scrapped? That will be interesting. Where is your money?

  3. Isn’t Ritchie adamant about everything ?

    As I ‘ve said before :


    (a very sad translation to English is : obtuse! Just does not have the same ring. Untranslatable, like Schadenfreude.

    Alan Douglas

  4. Murphy is now trying his hardest to bluster the way through the fact he is wrong (again). Why do the same idiots continue to believe his drivel?

  5. I might be wrong, (or right, because to be honest, I’m a bit confused) but I think his logic is:

    although he’s wrong, the only reason the EU looked at this issue is because of him. So actually he’s right.

    Or wrong ?

    Oh oh, the voices are telling me to do bad things again.

  6. Worzel
    You’re right. He opened up the shameless IoM VAT issue which enabled IoM to lead with zero ten. He then offered to advise Jersey that what they were doing wouldn’t be acceptable, and maintained that stance despite extreme hostility.

    What he didn’t predict was the EU Code of Conduct passing it through without the ‘harmful’ aspect, without bearing in mind the local consequences that the increased deficit would land on the tax paying population.

    I say it’s a worthy cause. But who cares about worthy when you can spit at someone.

    No ratification of the structure from ECOFIN til December. Enough time for Jersey and IoM to laugh while they increase the taxes on the poor, to support a craven industry that believes hiding criminality successfully and pissing on the public as a game.

  7. Emil
    So a £10M (and sure to rise when the ruse is out) extra deficit on Jersey’s straining economy will not be met be increased taxation on everyone else apart from the finance industry?

    Even the IoM are admitting they cannot predict the increased deficit.

    What’s happening in the UK? Oh, more taxes for the poorer whilst spazzcocks with an issue about their fucking supremacy are demanding cuts?

    R a r e f i e d i g n o r a n c e

    it makes folk choke, you’re idiocy.

    More than Worstall’s pantomime daming.

    Honestly, no grasp on reality. Stick to your books and your wanking over curves.

  8. Thornavis

    You were obviously born yesterday on this topic, and are stupidly mimicking the soggy biscuit brigade on here too. Go on, eat it. If they knew anything they wouldn’t crow.

    But then you must also enjoy the break up of societies due to corps sucking up the public money in order to keep it rather than use it, cos it’s liberal yeah. Like big finance is doing you a favour…..oh wait, your mouth is full.

    Now. Where’s the evidence against, pedants.

  9. The soggy biscuit brigade, you’ve lost me there old chap. Actually Arnald had you been paying attention you would realise that my less than serious comment was aimed mostly at you and your odd reasoning in support of Murphy, the “What I tell you three times is true” defence.

  10. It refers to the practice of masturbating on a biscuit. Arnald often has masturbation on his mind when the topic involves Richard Murphy.

  11. I wonder which brand of adult incontinence garment Arnald uses. It must be a blinder, giving the amount of shit that comes out of him.

  12. Arnald,

    What about Jersey’s ‘poor’ when they take away our primary source of income as RedRitchie would suggest ?

    The truth is the left couldn’t give a shit about the ‘poor’. They are just pawns in your game of fantasy socialism, where simpletons like you believe you make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. The belief that Government should be the primary determinant of the allocation of assets within an economy, in the name of such things as ‘Social Justice’, is why the UK and their ilk have mismanaged economies to the extent that 50% plus tax rates are required. If the banks are guilty of anything, it is that their success, and tax contribution, over the years that have enabled this level of mismanagement.

    You can’t do anything about the fact that Companies and individuals have the freedom to use legal methods to decide not to enable Governments to further perpetuate this mismanagement, so why not focus upon the enablers such as union bullies and bleeding heart moralistic blackmailers, instead of perpetually criticising those whose taxes you would advocate be squandered further by placing ever-increasing amounts in the hands of government.

    If the OECD and the EU continue to come down in favour of Jersey, I guess we can live with irritating worms like yourself and Murphy, whose true politics are simply those of envy.

    Oh , and to bring it down to your usual level of debate, you can also go fuck yourself.

  13. Worzel
    Actually it’s this blog’s level of debate.

    It’s sad to think you would rather be ruled by unelected quasi-criminals rather than an elected government.

    ” the banks are guilty of anything, it is that their success, and tax contribution, over the years that have enabled this level of mismanagement.”

    yeah and how much have they cost society.

    Keep that blindfold on. Keep sucking up the shit.

  14. The banks haven’t cost society anything Arnald it’s the state which encouraged a credit bubble and more or less begged the banks to be reckless in their lending. It was also the state that underwrote this folly by organising the bailouts. The banks are guilty by association but suppose they had refused to do that and stuck to sound lending policies what would you and others on the left have said about that ? Probably that they were deliberately denying a better life to the poorer members of society and should be compelled to lend, just as people are demanding now that banks lend to various businesses they approve of even if their business plans don’t meet the bank’s criteria.

  15. Arnald, you see only costs to society, I see 50 years of financial contribution to society which has enabled government squander.

    As to your inflammatory nonsense about living under an unelected government. ? I have lived under a government that has been substantially financed by tax receipts from your despised industry, but if you can come up with an alternative to the financial services industry’s tax receipts, please let us all know.

    It’s pedantic little idealist numpties like yourself that, indirectly, suck up benefits provided by the very industry you would like to destroy.

  16. Sucking up shit ? The place where I live employs people to suck up the shit for us, all for a tax rate of 20%, because we don’t let the idealist wasters like yourself dictate our ‘social’ policies.

    You have your imaginary moral high ground, but, when it comes to shit, I would guess your tasting a fair deal more than I am. But thats one of the perils of being righteously angry on behalf of others, rather than looking to make the best of your own life.

  17. Utter bollocks Thornavis. The industries that benefit from lax government regulation are the ones that advise the government.

    As for Worzel. Words fail me. I don’t know where you’re from, but I imagine the infrastructure that got you where you are (as an insufferable sociopath) would not have existed if your extremist views had been prevalent.

    Go read a book dickhead.

  18. Ok then Worzel. Where’s this magical place of harmony at 20%. I live in such a place and it’s bollocks to think that it’s superior to anywhere else. Fine if you tread the finance boards, but most people struggle. You obviously have no idea how life works. That’s why you cocks on here fail.

    Just far too privileged.

  19. Right Arnald so the poor old governments are at the mercy of the people who advise them they have no ability to determine the right thing to do and simply do what they’re told ? Not much point in having them then is there ?

  20. Sounds like I’d take my ‘failure’ over your ‘success’ every day mate. Only one of us seems to be so upset about everything.

  21. Sociopath. Interesting diagnosis. Thank you doctor. I’ll certainly claim some of these, but a frightening number seem to hit a little closer to (your) home. Heal thyself and all that.

    An air of self importance, regardless of their true standing in society
    Quick to lose their temper
    Belligernent and bullying manner
    Lack the ability to empathise with others
    Need for stimulation
    Poor behavioural controls
    lack of Realistic life plan
    Remorsely Vindictive when thwarted or exposed
    Appeals to the pity of others
    Professes to act for the good of others

  22. Arnald, as I believe I’ve mentioned before I don’t come into the ‘privileged’ category, not unless your definition of that is very broad and includes people who earn a bit above the average wage. In any case it’s an essentialist argument and therefore a a poor one, the correctness or otherwise of economic views and the morality of the person expressing them don’t depend on that person’s social status.

Leave a Reply

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