Allow us to add one word here

And yes, I am a director of the Fair Tax Mark. But for the record, I am not paid and the Fair Tax Mark Limited is a not-for-profit company.

Hmmm

And yes, I am a director of the Fair Tax Mark. But for the record, I am not paid yet and the Fair Tax Mark Limited is a not-for-profit company.

17 thoughts on “Allow us to add one word here”

  1. Bloke in North Dorset

    Not for profit does not mean that Directors and staff can’t and don’t pay themselves fat salaries and expenses.

  2. But profit is a dirty word, so a “not for profit” is morally good. You see, the company doesn’t make a profit – it just passes it on to its directors as income.

    Which is totally different to profit, because reasons.

  3. “for the record, I am not paid”

    Yeah but here’s what the investor prospectus says:

    “Richard Murphy and Paul Monaghan are currently offering their services to the project pro-bono, although this is not sustainable in the long term.”

    In other words Murphy WANTS to get paid but FTM is so godamm shyte it isn’t making any money but if it ever does Murphy will be sticking his snout in.

  4. Will he be berating his company for paying no Corporation Tax? I think we should be told.

    If it is anything like the average “non-profit” he will make a mint out of it. Treble salaries and expenses all-round!

  5. are we sure that it’s a not-for-profit company (in the sense that it will never make a profit) or is it really a company that doesn’t currently make a profit? I mean, if you want to do a not-for-profit then you would not typically use a limited company, would you?

  6. …although this is not sustainable in the long term

    Droll how in the vast firmament and many constellations of Murphy’s unsustainable inanities, his involvement with the FTM should be singled out for special mention

  7. Did anyone find out what happened at the European Parliament/Commission – did the proposal for this racket to go Europe wide go anywhere?

  8. So Shell will have to itemise in note 5 (i) to note 5 (clxiii) its profits, taxes paid (but not accrued so we’re looking at 2014 taxes on 2015 profits, not revenues so you cannot tell whether it has profits margins of 99% or 0.09%) and subsidies for every country in which it does business.
    Brilliant!
    They’ve listened to someone who listened to Murphy. It’s taken me longer to type this than to see how stupid they are.

  9. Thanks Lawrence!

    Proves my opinion about the European Parliament composition is on the money anyway – 500 votes to 122………

  10. Arguing for tax transparency without simplification of the tax system is always going to be messy and inevitably of little value. Even the HMRC have people who are experts in certain areas and industries (tax for opticians being one that I recall) so transparency isn’t going to help

  11. VP

    “Proves my opinion about the European Parliament composition is on the money anyway – 500 votes to 122………”

    Which is what?

  12. The European Parliament proposals sound like the whining of tax-illiterate populists.

    Mind you it’s all a mystery as we ere assured by Murphy that the Commission was VOTING on these subjects but the report seems to imply that all that has happened is that the PARLIAMENT has voted to ask the Commission to come up with PROPOSALS on these subjects, a request that the Commission isn’t even obliged to act on.

    I’m sure the report must be wrong though, as Murphy never is. He said so himself.

Leave a Reply

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