@RichardJMurphy trips over his own rhetoric

From the FT:

HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) stepped up its crackdown on tax evasion on Tuesday, publishing its second list of “deliberate tax defaulters” on its website.

The list includes 15 names owing more than £25,000 in tax, including two pub landlords and a kebab shop owner.

Now I’m the last to deny that tax evasion is an issue. It is: a £70 billion issue.

But isn’t it odd that the multinational corporations we all now know cost the UK billions in lost tax didn’t top the list?

This is a list of tax evaders. People who are breaking the law. If the Murphmonster knows of multinational businesses which are doing so I\’d suggest he reports them to Plod.

As it is, no, it\’s not odd that this list doesn\’t contain such. For no one at all thinks that the multinationals are breaking the law. There are some who think that the law ought to be changed, this is true, but that\’s all rather different from breaking the law as it is.

Murph\’s got so wrapped up in his own rhetoric that he\’s not capable of spotting this real world difference between tax evasion and the normal stuff he whines about.

16 thoughts on “@RichardJMurphy trips over his own rhetoric”

  1. £70 billion of EVASION!!!

    Christ, that’s a lot. And when we add in the avoidance…wow!!!

  2. It is important to remember the criteria you have to meet to be named and shamed by HMRC. It applies to people who have received penalties either for:

    1. Deliberate errors in their tax returns, or
    2. Deliberately failing to comply with their tax obligations.

    And where:

    1. HMRC have carried out an investigation and the person has been charged one or more penalties for deliberate defaults
    2. Those penalties involve tax of more than

  3. …25 thousand pounds.

    However, their information will not be published if the person earns the maximum reduction of the penalties by fully disclosing details of the defaults.

    So you would have to had lied and lied though your teeth and exhausted every route of appeal before you end up on the shit list. The opinion of some angry gimp in a shed in Norfolk counts for nothing here.

  4. These HMR&C tables are just about the the most spiteful, pathetic and useless bits of ‘liberal-socialist’ evil I have come across. That, out of some 26 million taxpayers all they can dredge up is these few examples, is a blot on the humanity of whoever dreamed this up. Sanctimonious shits, the lot of them.

  5. BB, roughly speaking, I understand that the larger deficit you run, the larger the stimulus, whether that is by tax cuts or spending.

    Well. the US has run a larger deficit than the UK or the Eurozone from 2008-12 inclusive. Quite a bit bigger than UK for 2011-2012, much the same for 2013, and predicted to fall below UK in 2014.

    When 75% (I made that up as I don’t read his stuff) of what Ritchie says is wrong, it seems a shame to pick on something where he may accidentally have said something that is either right or at least not obvious nonsense.


  6. Bemused Bystander

    My point is: most of the deficit decrease is from revenue increases (or tax hikes, if you like). As there hasn’t been a stimulus since 09/10 (in fact it’s the opposite, the sequester’s in place now) it’s highly unlikely that Ritchie’s hypothesis is correct.

  7. Bemused Bystander

    And I should also mention that according to the same CBO projections, the deficit will increase again towards the end of the decade so the Koorayjus Stayters can put away their champagne flutes for now.

  8. Luke,

    You’re saying that because the US runs a large deficit, this acts as a stimulus and shrinks the deficit.

    Do I have that right?

  9. Mr P, well, it has run a large deficit, and the deficit is now shrinking…..so why act all incredulous. It’s for you to say that something else is at work.

    I do think there can be situations where running a deficit for a while can lead to a reduced future deficit. Not all situations, and not necessarily an easy trick to pull off. But go look at US figures compared to us.

  10. BB, yes, I agree that some of the deficit reduction is due tax increases. Exactly what gay childless Bloomsbury economists would advocate – tighten up fiscal policy as the economy recovers.

    But do you agree a) US has been running a big deficit from 2008 on, and b) that is stimulatory?

    Is stimulatory a word? I am having arguments with predictive text.

  11. @ #11
    Keynes argues that* in certain situations* a government deficit is healthy. This is when (i) the government is running a balanced budget over the economic cycle – not seen since the’80s – and (ii) the economic cycle has led to a sudden drop in capital investment inn the private sector which could be reversed by a jump in consumer demand triggered by a budget deficit.
    This is *not* the current US situation. What we actually have is the one-sided benefit of a cut in the $:renminbi rate – the policy that Keynes hated. The converse is the marked slowdfown in the growth in Chinese GDP.

  12. The Thought Gang

    From the comments on Ritchies post: “There isnt a distinction” (between evasion and avoidance)

    So thats all settled then.

Leave a Reply

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