FastRobert – thanks for your comments
What you have to realise though is that the likes of Worstall have only one argument, and that is that all human life is consistent solely in its willingness to abuse
So the fact that I acknowledge I have changed my mind is in itself an affront to their assumption that all of human life and economics is based on a consistency that is never actually present in human behaviour, but which they cling to as a maxim none the less
Secondly my opposition to the abuse that they propose means nothing I do and nothing I say will ever be right in their opinion
Thankfully the world sees them for the charlatans they are
I have offered honest explanation – even pointed out rhat long ago I really did promote something I now think should be stopped (albeit by much ore sophisticated reform than they could possibly embrace) – and all they can say is I am a hypocrite
Any wise person realises that in the face of evidence a person can and should change their, except that is neoliberals who are so lacking in understanding of the human condition that it is widely realised tat they offer no useful recommendations for action – except of course by the discredited economics profession
Which is, of course, why almost no one reads the comments here precisely because it is populated by the likes of Worstall
A comments thread that is 226 comments long has no one reading it? A comments thread where one comment by me gets 92 recommendations has no one reading it?
As to the changing the mind part, yes, OK, well done. But the changing of the mind seems to have changed a bit.
There\’s that Observer article stating how to use a limited company as a services company, make the NI savings on dividends and take advantage of the at that time tax free allowance on the first £10k of profits. Since the revelation of that article, the way that it clashes with various reports written which state that such is abuse, we\’ve been told that that article was written in order to reveal and thus campaign against such abuse.
Murph actually says this in the CiF thread.
Then comes the revelation that Murph actually used this structure himself, after the article was published. For several years after it was published in fact. So the campaigning against it explanation is, umm, dificult to support.
And Lo! it is not supported! Rather, we get a \”yes I used to do that, thought better of it and now don\’t do it\”.
If that had been the first explanation then my own reaction would have been \”Jolly well done!\”. I might not agree with the position but can see its logic and applaud the matching of moral convictions with pocketbook issues.
However, given the previous excuse, the continued behaviour even as supposedly working against the practice, I\’m afraid that I find that reaction very hard indeed to support.
As to the rest of it, it\’s basically \”Worstall is a meanie so pay no attention\”. Which is really not an argument containing the sophistication we might expect of one of the country\’s leading tax experts and forensic accountants, is it?
\”except that is neoliberals who are so lacking in understanding of the human condition that it is widely realised tat they offer no useful recommendations for action\”
And that\’s very strange indeed. I\’ve recommended in these pages a number of things. Land value tax, a citizen\’s basic income, a rise in the tax allowance to the level of the full year, full time, minimum wage (that is assuming that we continue to have a minimum wage with a CBI), the legalisation of drugs, a carbon tax, road pricing…..rather a lot of things actually.
You don\’t have to agree with all of them, certainly. But some of them are certainly useful suggestions. One is in the Green Party manifesto (no, not as a result of my suggestion, of course not, but Ritchie does like Caroline Lucas so I am advocating something from \”his side\”), another is a long standing ASI policy which the Lib Dems sorta put into the coalition agreement, a third is actually a cornerstone of the Stern Review……
\”Nothing useful\” eh?