Ritchie gets angry

So, the Murphmonster tells us that Amazon is in fact paying tax, is in fact paying more tax than would be due under his favourite system of unitary taxation. I then spread this good news and urge him to tell others, like for example Margaret, Lady Hodge. You know, all those people labouring under the misapprehension that Amazon is somehow tax dodging.

This makes Ritchie very angry:

As for the rest, it’s just straightforwardly untrue and a total misrepresentation of anything I have said both today and previously, all of which I stand by. Forbes really should take care when publishing blatant misrepresentations of the truth, including (but not limited to) the suggestion that I am the UK’s leading tax expert, which I simply do not and never would remotely agree with.

I can assure you that Tim Worstall will never appear anywhere on this blog again. Not only is he a lousy economist he simply cannot tell the truth. In combination that is enough to resolve the issue for good.

The thing is, he really did say that Amazon was paying tax and they really are paying more than they would do under unitary taxation. So he was correct when he said that they were not tax avoiding.

And if they’re not then he really should be telling people that, shouldn’t he?

32 thoughts on “Ritchie gets angry”

  1. He is correct. He isn’t the UK’s leading tax expert.

    He is however the author of “the UK’s No 1 Economics Blog”, so is massively qualified to call Tim a lousy economist.

  2. You’re missing the point Tim; GLOBAL DOMINATION coupled with monopolistic rent-seeking. Can’t you see the diabolical secret plan?

  3. Bloke with a Boat

    Is he a leading tax expert? Maybe not leading but the BBC NI and the Methodist Conference both refer to him as a tax expert, and that’s just from a quick Google.

    I assume that if I search his blog I will find similar denouncements.

  4. He’s also a self-appointed economics expert as well. Don’t forget that. And a habitual lair. So well placed to say:

    “Not only is he a lousy economist he simply cannot tell the truth.”

  5. The man is a complete fuckwit.

    Today he denies accusing Amazon of avoiding tax yet in his response to Andrew Jackson he says

    “They have underpaid in the past.”

    Sounds to me that he is accusing them of tax avoidance.

  6. Sorry, fell into the common trap in the above comment, mixing evasion/avoidance! Too much time reading the UK’s Leading Tax Expert.

    Ritchie denies that Amazon is a tax evader but then says they have underpaid tax. If they have underpaid then they have not paid the legally due amount of tax, so are evading tax. If they have paid the correct amount of tax then they are complying with the law and are not tax evading.

    So which is it Ritchie?

  7. Bloke in Costa Rica

    I think (or perhaps hope) that sooner or later Murphy will overstep the mark and a target of one of his demented diatribes will see fit to retain counsel. If it happens to be a deep-pocketed corporation then he could be in very hot water.

  8. This is beyond hilarious, for any number of reasons:

    1/ Although he has given Tim the boot, I’m sure at some point he will
    Make a comment which Murphy will be unable to resist pointing out as ‘blatantly wrong’ and ‘undermining his case’. I have a particular loathing of the hypocrisy of champagne socialism and they don’t come much more blatant than him.

    2/ To accuse Tim of pedantry and then seize on one or two sentences that apparently might be wrong and use that to engage in a blatant attack on His integrity exposes Murphy’s hypocrisy and double standards

    3/ the response on the post to Andrew Jackson (Pellinor) exposes the facade as a Potemkin village that his is a forum where ‘abuse is not permitted’. In fact the poverty of his arguments and his paper thin skin and sensitivity to criticism mean when his intellectual bs kruptcy has been exposed all he has left is the recourse of insulting, or even banning the critic.

    What an absolute buffoon – Tim has been vindicated utterly. The one I do feel sorry for is the genuine article, Mr. Murphy Richards, whom this latest affair seems to have put out of a job, as it were….

  9. So what’s it like being savaged by a dead sheep Tim?

    Murphy’s half way down the sad road to insanity.

  10. He never really recovered from setting up a company to promote overpayment of tax (and hence a fraud on the shareholders of the payee) which itself was designed to pay no tax.

    Even for champagne socialists that was a bridge too far.

  11. @BiCR

    “one of his demented diatribes will see fit to retain counsel”

    If I recall correctly, in one of the videos where he’s preaching to a bunch of lefties somewhere he does say Lord Ashcroft slapped an injunction on him, but then Prem Sikka published anyway.

  12. Ritchie has been absolutely hammered recently, and with good reason. In order to put this right – in his mind- he has written a whole bunch of drivel, inviting his supporters to fawn all over him – which they did. I’m guessing that most of these are made up comments by himself. As someone said, Tim is really starting to get under his skin – which is hilarious and brightens up my monotonous days.

  13. Great stuff from Murphy on his blog on tax transparency. He invents a concept called “related permanent establishment” which would make Amazon EU taxable in the UK. What is a “related permanent establishment”?

    Well, according to Murphy;

    “Amazon EU Sarl would be covered but not because it has a subsidiary in the UK”

    And a few posts later when questioned again on what Amazon EU’s ‘related permanent establishment’ is he says;

    “It is Amazon UK

    Isn’t that glaringly obvious?”

    Well, no Richard, if you say a related permanent establishment ISN’T a subsidiary it isn’t glaringly obvious that it IS a subsidiary.

    Unless, I suppose you use MurphyLogic,

  14. Murphy’s blog this morning launches a blistering attack on Apple under the headline

    “Apple’s patents are part of rentier capitalism”

    “Apple has patented the layout of its stores.” Richard screeches “How can you patent where you put a table?”

    The clue lies in the headline of the article he links to which states;

    “Apple trademarks its store layout”

    It seems the self-professed world’s greatest commentator on everything doesn’t know the difference between a patent and a trademark.


  15. (He’s now updated his blog changing ‘patent’ to ‘trademark’ and claims it makes no difference to what he said.)

  16. But for sheer outrage I would offer Howard Reed dismissal of Tim’s observation that we should look at it all from the point of view of consumption – sheer nonsense he called it. In his opinion the producer is at least as important.

    Now certainly we wish, being a civilised society, for workers to enjoy good sage conditions. Certainly also social justice requires a decent living wage. And we could even argue for higher wages as important to boost aggregate demand – if we wished.

    However, Howard specifically picks out Tim’s point as “nonsense” and argues that economic activity is not primarily concerned with consumption. That is the Courageous State for you. Serfdom for its subjects. Arbeit macht frei.

    It is also bollocks

  17. I like a good anagram as much as the next person, but why bother in this case? The only reason would be so that people would think “look at all those sycophants”. Which is still odd.

    Someone here with too much time on their hands.

  18. I find myself deeply ambivalent about Ritchie. I’d normally say he should die a slow and painful death, but really I’m not sure we can wait that long; it might be acceptable for him to get off lightly in order to be rid of him sooner.

    Make no mistake, Ritchie isn’t a fool, he’s a Nazi.

  19. @ Noel – What about the rest – quite a few others in that list (potentially) look a tad suspicious: Dennis, Paul, Chris, Lottie, Keith, and perhaps one or two others..!?

    @ Arnald – it might perhaps look like it, though the topic of that blog was of course aimed at “adverse” posts….

  20. Just lovely.

    Finally Lefties encounter a company that makes really small profits (because that’s “fair”) and what do they do?

    Complain they aren’t making enough profit to be liable for a large corporation tax bill!

    There’s no pleasing some………….imbeciles.

  21. ” Arnald – it might perhaps look like it, though the topic of that blog was of course aimed at “adverse” posts….”

    they are nearly all anagrams on that thread. easily spotted after the nudge from scoper

    some little shit had fun, but hey, worse things happen in here.

  22. “Why they would bother to compliment you whilst hiding intent is very peculiar.”

    Arnald: I can’t work out whether you are being serious or not – are you a double agent!? (and if it’s language, ie English isn’t your first language, my apologies).

    btw, I doubt it’s “they” – it looks more like just the one to me?

  23. Ironman:

    Would ‘The books are all wrong’ be trumped by the (non-insulting, of course) ‘If you cannot use Google I am not your personal search engine’? from the thread. I must stop reading TRUK – the falling off my chair is causing too many minor injuries….

  24. Oh Johnathan.

    I don’t care if Ritchie’s arguments suffer terribly – God knows, he tortures them enough himself – but I don’t wish the man ill at all. Seriously.

  25. Absolutely, Christie. I know a couple of people with gallstones, and it’s not a condition I’d wish on anyone.

Leave a Reply

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