Ritchie: Gimmie your tax money!

The HMRC response was interesting. As a matter of fact we know that there is an unlevel playing field in terms of HMRC access. Funding is a clear part of this issue, and it is beholden on HMRC and the government to fund alternative opinion if it wants good tax policy (and before anyone bleats of my promoting self-interest, the issue is as much about smaller firms and individuals having access as NGOs: all suffer the same problem).

Umm, why shouldn’t the funding come from those who want to do the beholdening?

24 thoughts on “Ritchie: Gimmie your tax money!”

  1. Two thoughts:

    1. “I may request more meetings”.
    Fine mate, just don’t request payment for attending meetings that you have requested; you wouldn’t want to be seen as a complete chancer would you?

    2. Shouldn’t HMRC consult with people who know what they’re talking about? You know, the sort of people who can get all the way to Page 5 of the BoE paper!

  2. The Meissen Bison

    The conundrum is why does Ritchie need such a fat neck to support such an empty head?

    I leave it to wiser contributors to fisk his pronouncements on tax and will restrict myself to observe that it is beholden on HMRC (rather than, say, ‘it behoves’ or ‘it is incumbent upon’) is an unlovely linguistic invention of Ritchie’s devising.

  3. And the BoE are in the process of dismantling conventional neo-classical economics!

    As a commenter over at Ritchie’s place says “And if economics textbooks are wrong, what about history books? What about chemistry, physics? What else are we being lied to about?”

    I’m calling Poe’s Law….

  4. I actually think Bill Kruse is an elaborate sock puppet of Ritchie himself. Add a fuckwit who dribbles even more than you do and the initial bullshit mountain of a post starts to look reasonably founded by comparison.

  5. Interestingly Ritchie doesn’t offer us any comment on where the BoE paper leaves us on the Money Multipier, that macroeconomic corner-stone on which he and Howard Reed have based those ‘governement needs to spray the money around’ papers on which they collaborated.

    As most of us are banned from Ritchie’s blog, perhaps Howard would like to join us on here to discuss it. Or perhaps he would just like to find a new friend, one who isn’t off with the fairies.

  6. Dennis The Peasant

    “…and before anyone bleats of my promoting self-interest…”

    Ah yes, the battle-cry of the Government Mooch.

    Species is well known on this side of the pond.

  7. Ironman

    Afraid to say that you’re unlikely to see either him or Murphy on here – don’t you know(and His co-author echoes these sentiments):

    ‘it’s (Tim’s blog) one of the most objectionable blogs on the web – I won’t link to it – it’s too offensive’

    ‘Worstall permits abuse, I do not , and I’m proud of the fact’

    ‘I don’t take Worstall seriously and no does anyone else on the Left, he’s a troll cheerleader who encapsulates the very worst of what the internet has to offer’

    His sense of irony remains non-existent. But if he wants to live in an echo chamber (metaphorically speaking) who am I to argue!

    In response to the post itself, his Pooterish sense ofself-importance and insistence that failure to consult with someone as self-evidently idiotic as he has proven himself to be constitutes evidence of some neo-liberal conspiracy, really puts him on a par with an Alex Jones, Lew Rockwell or David Icke. Utterly batshit crazy.

  8. Heh. An author of a piece quoted by Ritchie has just pulled him up:

    “Mr. Murphy — I’d like to clarify the portion of my article that you excerpted — only the first sentence of the paragraph is directly attributable to Mr. Williams. The second sentence is my own commentary based on his comments, as well as those of other government officials.”

    His response is to say that his misattribution doesn’t change his conclusions in any way.

  9. Nigel Evans and Ritchie are of the same breed.

    They are both desperate to stick their hands down other people’s trousers and have a good rummage around to get what they want.

  10. And another gem on his thread about Google etc holding cash in Bermuda, in response to Tyler who comments here:

    ‘My readers do not need to be subjected to the continual misinformation that you supply on the site, presumably because you are paid to do so’.

    Why would anyone pay someone to post ‘misinformation’ on his site? What an ego!

  11. Why would anyone pay someone to post ‘misinformation’ on his site? What an ego!

    Max

    Actually, there are a good number of unions, charities and NGOs that seem to be quite happy to misuse their funds by paying Ritchie to post the “misinformation” (utter shite) he does on his site every day or conduct the background research for some of the postings.

  12. Max

    I am sure the real Account, @MurphyRichards, will be able to explain exactly the scale of the neo-Liberal conspiracy shortly….

  13. Surreptitious Evil

    None of you are getting the fundamental point – it’s not just about the money!*

    If he gets to write a report for HMRC, he’ll just regurgitate some of the tosh he’s written for Rowntree, Uncut, PCS, TUC etc but it will be yet another organisation that supports R Murphy Esq’s view on “the right thing to do”. That all of these supportive reports are written by R Murphy Esq is irrelevant as nobody ever reads anything other than the Guardian laudatory summary.

    * The money is a significant part of the point, however.

  14. SE

    The PCS isn’t the only HMRC union. It’s interesting that the other one, ARC doesn’t get much of a mention. It’s as if they thought he was a bell-end, wouldn’t pay him anything and he’s gone off in a huff. Not that I’d know!

  15. >Umm, why shouldn’t the funding come from those who want to do the beholdening?

    It does if you correct an error in the original sentence:

    …it is beholden on HMRC and the government to fund alternative opinion if it wants good tax policy…

    For isn’t tax policy mandated by government and implemented/enforced by HMRC? Mr Murphy is probably lobbying for a meeting with the wrong people.

  16. Great; so now we are to be forced to pay tax in order to fund Murphy to tell us that we should pay yet more tax.

  17. If he does get money from HMRC, I wonder if he will declare it for tax or claim that it is a non-taxable grant?

  18. Richard

    That would be a grant “for which no services were given in exchange”.

    I have really never seen anything like on any accounts I have seen or helped prepare.

  19. Simplifying the tax code would mean less need for individuals, small businesses etc to lobby HMRC/Govt so we wouldn’t need to give them “grants” to do it.

    I suspect that this is not a suggestion Ritchie would go along with though.

  20. @ Max

    I’ll just make it clear here: I do not get paid to comment on his blog. I do it because I feel that the sheer and utter rubbish – propaganda if you will – needs to be held to account. And perhaps a little sport.

    He however does get paid to write his blog. According to last years accounts, he gets paid about 65k from TR, not counting other income he may recieve from other sources, and his wife’s GP salary. All in all, he’s very much in the top 1%.

    And as you so rightly say – who in their right mind would pay someone to write on his site? His messiah complex has hit overdrive now.

  21. Oh, and of course, he immediately blocked me when I made it clear that I do not get paid to comment on his blog. Right to reply again depends solely on agreement with him.

    Wonder if I should threaten to sue him or something – after all, he’s done the same to me a few times – which I positively encouraged.

  22. Tyler

    I saw your exahcange with him and, even after all I’ve read from him, I was actually shocked.

    I’ve told him before that, regardless of his right to stop comments on his blog that he doesn’t like, for a blogger to it shows him to be weak.

    And yes, accusing you of being paid to go on his blog was a defamatory comment. You would be within your rights to follow it up.

  23. Ironman/Tyler

    I’m as surprised as Ironman that he hasn’t removed the entire exchange – it shows a serious lack of confidence for such an ’eminent’ thinker (the UK’s ‘number one’ economics blogger, no less) to offer up as a counter to your moderately phrased opinions that you were in effect a paid opponent. I’d say you’d have a strong case for defamation certainly.

  24. @ Ironman and others

    I have considered taking action, and I guess I reserve my right, but it would probably be pointless to go nuclear. Murphy himself often threatens me with till I point out he hasn’t got a legal leg to stand on. By the same token I would probably win, but the real winners would be the lawyers. I also don’t really care – we’ve all noticed with him that he finds it very difficult to differentiate between reality and the neoliberal conspiracy theories running around inside his head, and to that end trying to drag some sort of apology out of him would likely be more stressful to me than to him. Ultimately I post for the interest and discussion, not money, and certainly not stress of my own making.

    That all said, I did ask for an apology, which he has studiously avoided to provide, so if he continues to slander me then I will consider my options, as will my fighty lawyer girlfriend.

Leave a Reply

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