Skip to content

Most amusing

Kay might have come to the right c0nclusion, but his reasoning was dire.

Dire reasoning, eh? An accusation of that from Ritchie?

So, first the implication is that he’s happy that these transactions take place even though tax is not paid. Indeed, he’d rather that than tax be paid. That puts him firmly on the wrong side of morality.

But then he assumes that we’d lose if tax was paid. Again, he’s just wrong. If tax was paid there would be a level playing field for all business. It could invest knowing it was competing fairly. Cheats undercutting prices would not exist. We would have better, more stable, longer term business. And people would pay more because they could trust those they were trading with. The economy would grow without tax cheating in other words. John Kay’s economics is just wrong.

Marvellous. Corporate tax cheats undercut prices. Thus consumers benefit from tax cheats. And that also means that the incidence of corporate tax is partly at least upon consumers: because in the presence of such taxes consumers pay higher prices.

All of which is difficult to square with Ritchie’s insistence that it’s actually the rich bastards that pay corporate taxes.

Or maybe it’s just dire reasoning.

6 thoughts on “Most amusing”

  1. So, let me try to understand the reasoning – all backed by empirical research I’m sure – of the 20% Professor of Global Political Economic Stuff: the incidence of corporation tax avoidance is on the consumer but the incidence of corporation tax is only on Capital….wtf?

  2. “So, first the implication is that he’s happy that these transactions take place even though tax is not paid. Indeed, he’d rather that than tax be paid. That puts him firmly on the wrong side of morality.”

    So the right side of morality ( which I thought he thought was subjective, but never mind) is to prefer those transactions didn’t take rather than see them not get taxed. So morality requires the value never to be added, the consumer never to benefit, the employee not to receive a wage, the pensioner – investor not to have heir pension boosted unless the transaction gets taxed.
    Let’s be clear, HMRC employees regard that sort of world view as mad – arse zealotry; Ritchie is off the charts.

  3. As usual, the measured tones of John
    Kay seem to sum up the situation rather better than the incoherent rants of Arnald’s boss:

    “Tax is thus a moral issue. Not because we should take pleasure in paying tax but because the behaviour of well off people, and large companies, should conform to the expectations of most reasonable people. It is not just the rule of law but also a sense of shared values that makes economic and social life possible in the modern state. That is why multinational businesses should not engage in transactions without commercial substance; and why celebrities faced with large tax bills as a result of failed avoidance schemes deserve what they get.”

  4. Exactly so. Richard Murphy’s case is dependant upon misrepresenting people like John Kay, attributing views to them about tax and society that they just do not hold whilst simultaneously sermon in sing on morality. His fundamental dishonesty is matched only by his complete lack of shame or embarrassment.

  5. Ironman nails it – he is arguably the most hypocritical individual I have ever seen in public life. An annoying pedant who is quick to point out other people asking about vital details as ‘pedantic’. Someone who poses as a ‘representative of civil society’ whilst living in a sizeable property well above average for his domicle house with a high earning wife and being paid a not insignificant sum to display less than zero knowledge and – the ultimate hypocrite.

  6. Murphy is approaching such levels of self-parody and public visibility that he must surely be a candidate for a regular strip in Viz?

    In would be only fair given that he is regularly visited by Viz characters in the comments section of his blog.

Leave a Reply

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