Well, this would be a nice little earner, that’s for sure

But there are simple solutions. First, we need to appoint a cabinet-level minister to be responsible for HMRC who would be answerable for it in both parliament and to other departments and agencies. Second, HMRC needs to be subject to more rigorous and independent review than has been provided by the National Audit Office. What we need instead is an Office for Tax Responsibility, well-funded and well-staffed, accountable to either the Treasury or Public Accounts Committee, or perhaps both. Third, any group seeking to make representation during tax consultations should be able to bid for funding to cover the reasonable costs of doing so. Only then will ordinary taxpayers, small businesses, pensioners, charities and others be truly represented in these processes.

Both Murph and I would spend our time doing nothing but that. For “funding to cover reasonable costs” would be rather above the market rate that either of us is able to covet under normal circumstances.

£750 a day, £1,000 a day, for a Senior Fellow of the Adam Smith Institute sound fair to you? 250 days a year?

That is what Murph means he should be allowed to get his snout into let me assure you.

14 thoughts on “Well, this would be a nice little earner, that’s for sure”

  1. So, how do ordinary taxpayers get in on this gig? Richie wants them represented. I assume he means they will represent themselves, rather than by, for example, some soviet little despot. He can’t stipulate any level of expertise as a filter, as that would early filter himself out as well.

    So, how will it work?

  2. @ Tim
    I was on £880 a day* in Albania (while I think that included a risk premium for not falling down holes in the pavement on my way back fro the Ministry of Finance to my hotel and the risk of political violence), it probably was due to my higher qualifications compared to you, let alone compared to a twit like Murphy).
    *A bit over £1000/day in current money.
    A day being not less than 8 hours work, more was just a day, less was scaled down pro-rata, travelling was ignored by Thatcher’s “Know-How Fund” but was paid by World Bank and some EU funding. We liked the “Know-How” fund rules although we’d have got more from the others because it paid for work actually done, which seemed right.

  3. My guess – he wants to bypass the NAO because he floated his tax “responsibility” to them and they told him to fuck off?

  4. @ SE
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury is responsible to the Chancellor of the Exchequer – I have to keep saying that I am not stupid as I look

  5. Surreptitious Evil

    I have no idea what you look like but I’m perfectly happy to accept your statement that you look stupid.

  6. £1k per day in London for someone with not much in the way of qualifications or experience would mean lots of 8am – 3 am days. Are you fit enough for that, Tim?

  7. Third, any group seeking to make representation during tax consultations should be able to bid for funding to cover the reasonable costs of doing so.

    Both Murph and I would spend our time doing nothing but that.

    Can anyone play..:)

Leave a Reply

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