Interesting: Ritchie’s accounts are out

All a bit boring: grants aren’t supplies or something so no VAT registration. £10k from PCS looks cheap for all the times he’s said we must have more PCS members employed.

However, he describes the major activity as being running his blog. For which total income, including some other stuff, like PCS, is £78k a year. No wonder he wouldn’t work for Corby.

But didn’t he just say that his blog got 1.4 million page views over the year?

I actually don’t know what this blog does: don’t have a counter on it at all. Well, I don’t think I do. But that’s 4 k page views a day he’s claiming: which I would guess this blog does do. Around at least.

Blimey ain’t it great sucking on the teat of the long march through the institutions?

21 thoughts on “Interesting: Ritchie’s accounts are out”

  1. “However, he describes the major activity as being running his blog.”

    Erm, didn’t he blog or tweet that he’s not paid to blog?

  2. If he’s not paid to blog, then just what has he done for the PCS that was worth £10k. And just how isn £78k justified, what work?

    Gravy Train

  3. Tim Daw

    “$100K or double”

    Alexaview (your link) says just $26 per day – or $10K per annum.

    Perhaps Ritchie is finally getting something right..:)

  4. The accounts show how lucrative the tax justice crusade is for Ritchie. In the year to 31.3.2015, his income was £79k, of which £35k was from the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, £22k came from lobbying for unions and fake charities (mainly PCS and Unite, surprisingly nothing from the TUC which used to pay him) which leaves another £22k from other consultancy, broadcasting fees, book royalties, etc.

    He has now lost his JRCT grant but is getting £65k p.a. from 2 other trusts. Plus he has the City University job – average pay of a professor is about £75k so say £15k for his one day a week. So assuming his other income is at the same level as last year (i.e. £44k as explained above), then this year he will make about £124k! It’s a pretty good life for a smalltime provincial accountant!

  5. “That’s not a bad living for a prostitute, I just wouldn’t want to do that work for any money”

    (Paraphrased, and possibly apocryphal) Winston Churchill.

  6. He’s got his depreciation charge wrong unless he bought all his new equipment on April 1st 2014, and disposed of all the old stuff after the third anniversary of purchase, which is kind of difficult as he bought some of it in 2013/4.

  7. @CHF

    The point being that someone’s accounts do not necessarily reflect the tax position. The depreciation in the accounts will reflect writing off an asset over it’s useful economic life. If a machine will last 4 years you might write it off at 25% p.a. straight-line basis.

    For tax purposes it is statute that dictates what allowances you get. As you say, AIA allows 100% write-off in year one but only for the right assets. If you have a gas guzzling car you’d be stuck with 8% p.a. reducing basis.

  8. But depreciation is an evil scheme to deprive the courageous state of its rightful dues, surely he’s not claiming it

  9. Someone getting paid that much money to write doesn’t get to blame typos on having to use his ipad. The ordinary people he purports to represent have to exhibit significantly more professionalism and diligence in their McJobs, for a fraction of the wage.

  10. Meanwhile, over at the TJN accounts:

    “In 2014, after lengthy negotiation, we received confirmation from HM Revenue & Customs that our UK registered company, Tax Justice Network Limited (TJN Ltd), a company limited by guarantee, is deemed a not-for-profit body with charitable purpose. In light of this, we have initiated a restructuring which will create a single company structure with a single Board of Directors. TJR Ltd ceased its activities in quarter one 2015, and TJN Ltd has proceeded with reclaiming tax paid to HMRC in earlier years.”

  11. -TTG

    Not sure about the typos..
    Correct grammar, style, and use of jargon, yes. For that amount of dosh I’d expect near-flawless logic and rhetoric as well, given that he’s paid to present the position of his Patrons, and can and should be expected to publish something that doesn’t have holes in you can drive a tank through. (big failure there if Tim, for instance, can drive through in a couple of sentences on a blog…)

    But typos? Typos happen. Quite often consistently enough that you can spot where Editors have been meddling with Things in the raw copy if you’re familiar enough with how someone writes.

  12. The last numbers I saw for you were – I think – 120k per month. That would be some time ago.

    That may have been in a conversation with the Devil.

  13. So he isn’t just not paying tax now, but he’s also no longer paying tax in the past either?

    And this fat hypocrite lectures the world about “tax justice”?

  14. @Andrew

    “The point being that someone’s accounts do not necessarily reflect the tax position. ”

    Of course; never mind: I wasn’t thinking in the right context.

  15. The point being that someone’s accounts do not necessarily reflect the tax position.

    Isn’t demanding that this is changed basically Ritchie’s entire point?

    And I seem to recall him going off on one about the evils of capital allowances not that long ago (supporting the cloistered moron who thought that “allowable against tax” meant “the government pays for it”)?

    Hypocrisy? Who would have thought the Sage of Downham Market would stoop so low? Well, part from anybody (with half a brain) who has ever read anything he has ever written, of course!

Leave a Reply

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