It seems to me that Maya has laid her cards on the table: the difference of view on display is about whether you think the interests of big business or ordinary people are more important. I know what I think. It seems pretty clear what Maya thinks.
Alex and I wrote entirely independently. We come to similar conclusions, wondering in the first instance what this research is supposed to show, sharing serious doubts about its methodologies, evidence and claims, and finally wondering what the supposed actions that should flow from it are meant to be. If the aim is to undermine the work of NGOs on illicit financial flows the timing of the release could not be more cynical as the Financing for Development conference is now taking place in Addis. If that was not the aim, then what is desired is not clear.
The impression is that this is either a well aimed, but very poorly executed piece of corporate propaganda or a poorly done and badly timed piece of research that has fails in almost every respect. I’d rather hope it was the latter. But I am ever the optimist.
Cuntti di Tutti Cuntti really, isn’t it?
And it comes from Ritchie’s absolute insistence that he shouldn’t have to consider the incidence of corporation tax. Which is, as we all know, in some measure upon shareholders and all of the workers in the economy where that corporation tax is charged. It is not, can never be, upon the company. And, we also know what influences that split: the mobility of capital and the size of the taxing economy in relation to the global economy. The more mobile is capital, the smaller the economy, the more the incidence is upon the workers. And we even know (Atkinson and Stiglitz) that the incidence can be over 100%.
So, when we’re discussing the appropriate corporate tax rate on multinationals (ie, 100% mobile capital) in developing economies (ie, tiny compared to the world economy) we know (and yes, this is something we know and have done for a century, this isn’t one of those things that is arguable) that the burden will lie heavily upon those poor workers in that poor economy: perhaps even totally, or even a greater burden than the revenue raised.
Thus a consideration for the interests of ordinary people would see such corporate activity untaxed, wouldn’t it? As I recommend: precisely because I have the interests of the ordinary people at heart. Ritchie’s argument to tax the hell out of them just makes poor people poorer.
The Murphmonster recommends that the poorest of the world be made poorer.
Cunty is cunty, eh?