Or rather, we had to prove the concept of corporate tax incidence in order to, erm, well, I\’ll think of something soon enough says the Murphmeister.
In a survey of leading companies, 67pc told Ernst & Young that “uncertainty in relation to the future of the tax system in light of the recent debate on tax fairness” is the biggest deterrent to increasing the size of their business in the UK.
For it is indeed the MurphMonster that says the following two things:
1) We must have more investment. Companies must invest their cash surpluses for the good of the economy.
2) We need to have this mystical definition of \”tax fairness\” rather than the standard and time honoured rule of law. Tax fairness seemingly meaning cough up whatever tax the Murph thinks you should. Even to the point where Starbucks, that really, really, wasn\’t making UK profits, should have to do so.
Mix and match the two together and you can see that the very campaign for \”Pay what the Murph says\” leads to a fall off in that corporate investment.
Which is, of course, the very concept of tax incidence. As you tax corporations more, or even as you threaten to do so, there is less investment by corporates leading to fewer jobs and lower productivity in those that exist. Lower average productivity across the economy leads to lower wages across it. Thus the workers bear the burden.
Richard J Murphy: lowering the workers\’ wages.