Ritchie on Vodafone

And the cost in terms of tax lost on that Vodafone dividend? Over £12 billion. That’s what has gone by the wayside.

If the law was different from what it is then the tax bill would be different from what it is.

Well, yes, I suppose so. And if my Auntie had balls she’d be my Uncle.

15 thoughts on “Ritchie on Vodafone”

  1. Just think of the tax that has “gone by the wayside” because the Irish government doesn’t tax all its passport holders on their worldwide income. Especially if it didn’t give double tax relief, which after all is a neo-liberal tax dodge.

  2. Its quite instructive this little outburst. We see the thin veneer of reason peeling away, and the darkness beneath exposed. No longer any pretence of wanting even the ‘spirit of the tax laws’ to be adhered too, now its just naked greed – here’s a big chunk of money, that the tax laws specifically state is non taxable (whether in the UK or the Netherlands) and they want to get their hands on it.

  3. Hang on, won’t the tax get paid, anyway, by the dividend recipients? Many of whom will be British firms or individuals.

    Okay, I know it is slightly complicated with dividends – the company pays some tax and then the recipient gets a partial exemption, but the principle is sound?

  4. Why don’t you mention Murphy’s consistency about the subject here, Ben? Because someone else had to point it out and rubbish your effort at implying hypocrisy?

  5. @Arnald: yes, very consistent is our RM. I mean, fancy him demanding that the GMG be hauled before the PAC to answer questions about the sale of their AutoTrader subsidiary, and their use of overseas tax havens to structure their business, despite all his and the Left’s connections to the Guardian newspaper. How very intellectually consistent that was. Very ethically sound.

    Oh, sorry, that never happened.

    Its all very well living with your tongue up RM’s arse, but the nature of such a position means you’re going to get a shit sandwich to eat on a fairly regular basis. Hope it tastes nice!

  6. Arnald, I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. You’ll notice that I pointed out that Richard was consistent in his criticism of the SSE.

    I did, however, imply he was being inconsistent about arguing that a company “cannot be criticised for using it when the law required that it be applied” whilst demanding that another such company be investigated by the PAC.

    Which is pretty harmless when you consider he called me an enemy of free speech, or something similar. For suggesting he seek other people’s opinions, of all things.

  7. “Ne pas nourrir le troll, mon ami.”

    yep, shows how educated you are.

    Jim, Murphy criticises the tax laws. Just because the headline to the article bleats about Vodafone, it is in response to a newspaper article header.

    so stop being rubbish. Christ, it’s like a room full of toddlers in here

  8. Ben, if you’re referring to your flat refusal to accept that his Fair Tax Mark methodology had some peer review, then it follows that it could be seen that you were trying to stifle his opinions.

    But hey, this forum is not the place for reasonable adults.

  9. Arnald, I quote RM: “Should the PAC investigate Vodafone? My answer is an emphatic ‘Yes'”

    Now if you can point me to a similar call regarding the GMG and its use of SSE, then you are right, RM has been utterly consistent on this matter. If not then RM is a hypocrite.

  10. Arnald, in case you followed the Fair Tax Mark discussion, the faults in the method are blindingly obvious.

    The issue of whether it was peer reviewed is irrelevant to me. Richard was trying to hide behind his anonymous peer reviewers’ credentials of the finished methodology. Of course, it was then downgraded to a pilot project.

    You can take my comments as they were intended or however you wish, Arnald, but I would recommend you look at the substance of the criticisms rather than the bluster surrounding them.

  11. Ben, you seem to be suggesting that the methodology ought to be fit for purpose, and complaining that Murphy has only replied that it was peer reviewed.

    Surely “I asked someone if they’d spotted anything wrong” is logically equivalent to “there are no mistakes in it”? Something which has been looked at by two or more people can’t possibly have any mistakes in it.

    Oh, wait…

Leave a Reply

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