I find this particular article quite distressing, if I may.

Firstly, the acceptance of tax/costs being “passed on” to the consumer is an implicit acknowledgement of the fully discredited theory of tax incidence.

Tax incidence is fully discredited?

15 thoughts on “What?”

  1. Discredited eh?

    Then every time Ritchie claims a company’s tax avoidance is allowing it to engage in “unfair competition” he must be peddling what he knows is a discredited idea. Isn’t that downright dishonest?

  2. Discredited? Or “only heard about 5 minutes ago, realised it means everything I has ever said is wrong and so it must’ve been discredited”

  3. I’m sure he has accepted tax incidence in the past. I vaguely recall statements like “of course tax incidence exists, no one is denying that”.

    Does anyone want to rummage through the stumps to find it?

  4. “I guess he doesn’t think tax on petrol,alcohol etc does not reduce their consumption”

    They don’t, not to any great extent. That’s why they are taxed.

  5. Tax on booze, tobacco and petrol may not reduce consumption by much, but it does force a rise in price for the consumer- hence it seems that the consumer pays the tax.
    Unless of course brewers, tobacco companies and oil companies have their own magic money trees, in which case we await an explanation as to why they bother doing business at all.

  6. You lot keep criticizing Murphy for bullshitting when he is in the business of bullshitting, and very successfully too.

    So who is crazy, Murphy or you lot?

  7. Raised the point before, FredZ. It’s hard to ignore the possibility Richard Murphy – Tax Campaigner is a gig. Costumed superhero. He has a market. People will pay for bullshit. Murphy produces & sells bullshit. He doesn’t have to believe it any more than the next snakeoil salesman.
    Could explain why he’s so inconsistent. If they keep buying the label, why worry about what’s in the bottle?

  8. @ dearieme
    “Given markets” – but the Curajus state doesn’t have markets. It supplies the citizens with exactly what they need. (what do you mean “want”? – that isn’t a word in Newspeak).

  9. The trouble is that on Murph’s site, it is soetimes very difficult to tell whether the comment writer really believes what they write, unless it is one of the regulars like Ms Wilcox and co. I believe that this cove, giv en that he seems to contradict himself in the space of 4 lines, is a Murph-bot – in other words someone has programmed a bot to make posts that resemble the musings of the Meister.

Leave a Reply

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