What the corporation tax data for the UK clearly shows is that there has been a fall in large company tax payments and an increase in small company payments.

Small company payments are rising simply because of the growth in the number of such companies.

OK, £5 billion to £20 billion a year, that’s a rise. Eyeballing the large company payments, a fall from £24 billion to £22 billion or so. So, a rise in the tital amount of corporation tax being paid.

But what is also shocking is that the share of profit has been going up in the economy and still there is a fall in revenue form big business.

But, umm, that rise in the profit share is going to those small businesses which are paying more corporation tax!

Not that there is much of such a rise, because Ritchie is making his usual mistake of thinking that the economy divides neatly into labour share and profit share. It doesn’t, meaning that a falling labour share does not, necessarily, mean a rising profit share. As it isn’t very much right now.

This blog is focussed on providing creative solutions to the tax and economic issues we face in the interests of all rather than a few. If your comment is not a constructive contribution to that process it may well be deleted.

Is it constructive to point out that he’s using the wrong evidence?

22 thoughts on “Facepalm”

  1. Bloke in North Dorset

    “Small company payments are rising simply because of the growth in the number of such companies.”

    Or that they are becoming (more) profitable.

    What we really need to know is profit per company or even per employee for both large and small companies, but as he doesn’t provide it I can only conclude that it doesn’t fit his narrative or he hasn’t bothered to think about it.

  2. He’s got the basics wrong. HMRC data does not show small companies.
    It shows companies whose profits are taxed as small profits. You can be “large” by turnover, employees, capitalisation. Make a taxable profit of £100,000 and you are in the small profits zone.

  3. Are “creative solutions” like “creative accounting”, where you misrepresent the facts to show the result you want?

  4. £5m to £20m is a huge increase, both proportionately and because it brings smalls (in total) up to roughly the same as the bigs.

    But rather than look at what this reveals about the economy, Murphy misrepresents the facts to bring in his tax avoidance theories again.

    It’s either an obsession or a mental illness.

  5. At the top end, this is the Laffer Curve in action.

    At the bottom end, this might be largely because employment income is taxed at really savage rates (now increased to 40%-plus if you take tax and NIC together), self-employment is taxed at 29% upwards and company profits are taxed at 20% max.

    (There used to be a marginal calculation we had to do for clients to decide whether it was cheaper for tax purposes to take a salary bonus or a dividend – that’s all out of the window now, there is hardly ever a situation where salary bonus is cheaper.)

    So if at all possible, people will

    a) run their business (or disguised employment) through a company and

    b) take a small salary = higher profits, and then take the profit out as dividend rather than as salary.

    Grandiose money laundering, if you will.

  6. I tried to point out on the rent seeking thread that he was busily trying to do that with the Fair Tax Mark. After all, he wants regulate and even legislate to force every company who wants to be involved in public procurement to have one.

    But of course he is the only supplier of such a thing, and the only beneficiary. So once legislated in, he could simply raise his prices, extracting rent out of his captive market monopoly.

    The very definition of rent seeking – and an immediate ban on his blog.

  7. The Meissen Bison

    Is it constructive to point out that he’s using the wrong evidence?

    Here’s another entry for the RM – English Dictionary:

    Constructive: In full agreement with what I have said including any subsequent shift in the meaning of what I said as determined by me.

    So the answer to the question is, of course, a resounding ‘no’.

  8. Rik

    If ‘Alan’ on that thread is of this parish both he and you deserve high praise – he was made to look even more absurd than normal, and the ‘moderation’ entry currently sitting at the top of his blog currently (a direct response to his being basically ‘flamed’) is one of the greatest straw men he has yet come up with.

    My point that neither Tim, ChrIstie at FCA Blog, Frances Coppola, Chris Dillow nor Jolyon maugham feel the need to put such a policy in place seems unlikely to get through but had to be put in. I also pointed out that given he restricts the comments of those with whom he disagrees his contention that people’s should consider him some kind of expert on either taxation or economics were looking increasingly absurd – I think someone speculated he might have had a stroke – on the evidence of what I’m seeing that does seem the most likely explanation ….

  9. You go on and on about Murphy’s health, Patten. It makes you look like the opinionated, privileged tosser you are, complaining about someone that wants to change the rules.

    Isn’t that what ‘Timmy’ (bless) wants too?

    It is truly pathetic. All of you, where’s your vaunted liberalism?

    You comment out of childish spite. Do you really believe Timmy gets it right? 10% I reckon on a fact-checker. He wants to change rules, so does the next man. Trouble is on this blog is that you’re so far up your own arses that your elbow is a foreign fucking country.

    So what if Murphy is disagreeable, I don’t follow some of his trains of thought, but ferchristsakes, I think Worstall is a massive twat who believes his endless drivel, as entertaining as you find it: teh gayer, abortions, imaginary no-human trafficking, and allowing some old shit by people that are waiting to express obvious psychotic bullshit.

    All welcome except your predilictions. I add that you don’t make the rules, nor is there consensus about the rules you are slave to.

    I look forward to Ecks shitting his shit, also the rest of you simpletons.

    Wanting to change the rules is libertarian, no? Then what’s the problem? Get over yourselves

    Truly, I gave up on this blog looking for new ideas, all I get is you wanking over Steve’s bollocks. And Timmy’s.

    Jeebus.Here comes the derisory, plastic spanners wanting to fantasise about their ego-driven self-aggrandisments..

    Just like everyone does: teh meh, liberty imposters.

    I’ll enjoy your facile responses.

  10. Oh yeah, Timmy, if you were fact-checked you’d be embarassed. Day after day. I wonder why hardly anyone holds you to account. European misanthrope.

  11. Cos when timmy’s “wrong” it’s a normally (not always) just a matter of opinion and interpretation coloured by worldview.

    When the LHTD is wrong, it’s usually cos he’s objectively wrong, even after going all Roald Dahl’s BFG on the dictionary when challenged.

  12. Arnald

    Welcome back – the usual utter nonsense- ad hominems and witlessness – Not sure I can even be bothered to point out how wrong you are. it’s all been said before – and you won’t change your opinions – sadly for you people are getting wise to your idol’s profoundly illiberal mindset and his star looks to be on the wane – still, enjoy your flights of fantasy – I’m very happy you’ve found someone do amenable…:

  13. Arnald

    Against my better judgement – to answer your points – Murphy himself has been blogging from a hospital bed at least twice in the past 18 months – which suggests he may have some health issues. The lack of consistency in his points on a day to day basis also seems to be evidence that he is either not that clever or seems to have some memory issues which might indicate some health concerns. Furthermore wasn’t it the man himself who compared his treatment at the hands of ‘Timmy’ and his acolytes (and Tim himself after yet another comprehensive routing of Murphy was banned from the blog for life about 9 months ago I think) to the massacre at Chalie Hebdo – in his eyes the only difference being one of degree.

    As to me ‘complaining about someone who wants to change the rules’ – who the fuck elected him as the spokesman for anyone or anything? If he wants to run for office good luck to him. He seems to have the idea (which you share) that his opinions, insane though they are and in direct contradiction to around 200 years of conventional economics, ought to be adopted by the elected government of the day and takes extreme umbrage when people point out his myriad errors. hiwever it’s good to have you back – I was engaged in a contretemps with another troll the other day and he lacked your level of abusiveness- so welcome back…..

  14. “Oh yeah, Timmy, if you were fact-checked you’d be embarassed. Day after day. ”

    I think the difference is that I look forward to that. I’ve said a number of times that y’all out there know more than I do. So, let me flaunt what I don’t know and you correct me. Go for it, that’s rather the point of this place.

    I blog so that you may and will correct me.

    “I wonder why hardly anyone holds you to account.”

    I don’t know either. Why don’t you start doing it? Thre’s no paycheques for anyone in this but if I should be held to account, in your opinion, then why don’t you hold me to account?

    And I am being serious. If I am in error I want someone, anyone, to show me that I am, in what manner and how. For I’m rather hoping that I manage to achieve wsdom before I pop my clogs.

  15. Tim wrote:- “I think the difference is that I look forward to that. I’ve said a number of times that y’all out there know more than I do. So, let me flaunt what I don’t know and you correct me. Go for it, that’s rather the point of this place.”

    One interesting point I picked up in my education was a comparison between airlines and merchant mariners. Ships have one captain, and the captain’s word is law: airlines have two pilots and it’s enshrined in custom and practice that they check and confirm each other – a figure of an error a minute being caught and fixed during stressful evolutions was advanced. As a result, despite being inherently more dangerous, aviation has a lower accident rate on most metrics.

    Showing your answer with its working and saying “does this look right?” produces better results than declaring “this is the answer, kowtow before my might ye serfs and vassals”. It’s also more interesting to read and contribute to…

  16. Sue Queef says:
    April 3 2015 at 10:46 am
    Well said Richard! What I like about this blog is that voices dissenting from the neoliberal mainstream can be heard uninterrupted. That to me is true free speech, and long may it continue.

  17. @ Arnald
    I’m too busy to fact-check you every day but when I do have the time you are almost always embarassed (or bloody well should be).
    I *do* fact-check Tim when something looks wrong on a subject that I might know about and he replies courteously even at the outer limts of my knowledge, such as the interface between scandium and zirconia. Your lack of courtesy is verging on the legendary.

  18. Y’know, on the precious blog entry I pointed out our gracious host had conflated 2 related, but distinct, terms. I’ve neither been subject to a torrent of abuse nor banned. Go figure…

  19. In reverse order:

    TomJ, who cares what you think on this blog. You only have to read So Much For Subtlety to understand lunacy. Mr Ecks is deranged. When have you been subjected to abuse?

    John77, you are joking aren’t you? I’ve not read a single dissent for your paragraph-free ramblings.True you get some facts right: miniscule relevance.

    For fuck’s sake Timothy, you are not an authority on economic issues, you’ll not realise that I don’t comment on Murphy’s blog. The fact is you are so smug and your output does not warrant it. Sure, opionate, but the tough guys on here, and they are mostly guys, (JuliaM ffs) believe you are a bastion of oppostion to whatever you think is the current zeitgeist, in a fashion you feel clever about. You said this:

    Tim Worstall says:
    April 3, 2015 at 7:55 pm
    “Oh yeah, Timmy, if you were fact-checked you’d be embarassed. Day after day. ”

    “I think the difference is that I look forward to that”

    Bollocks, nobody does it, yet Murphy responds to everything, not always to his credit, but at least there dialogue. Yeah he is censorial, but there is some debate. You can’t be bothered, so your drivel means nothing except to the rich bastards that populate this old shit.

    And then there is Van Patten.

    I know it’s Easter saturday, Jesus is zombiefying in a cave, but do you honestly consider yourself as some sort of authority on matters unconnected to real life?

    Your post highlights the putrid distate of anyone that disagrees with you. At the very least, Murphy makes it obvious. You verbalise as if there is an antichrist. Sorry, you ‘sound’ like an over-privileged knob. I know people like you having spent twenty crushing years in offshore banking. Sad.

    What is writing from hospital got to do with anything. Christ (zombie as I type), nobody elects anybody to write their views, but Timothy bores everyone with his obsession.

    Meissen Bison (!), you twat. I have been a carer. Rough work for little pay. What do you do except wank?

Leave a Reply

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