Interesting assertion

Richard Murphy says:
April 8 2016 at 9:00 am
This is not the same as pensions – stop[ lying – they are tax free anyway

Since when are pension tax free?

16 thoughts on “Interesting assertion”

  1. Fucking hell, he’s hilarious. Just below that, this:

    ‘I have never hidden the fact that I was involved in a company in Ireland for a relatively short period in the 1980s. The lure was grants and not tax, but in the process I saw how pernicious tax haven advice provided by the Big 8 (as then was) really was and decided to do something about it. First, I then ran a firm that refused to do anything we thought artificial and would not take clients offshore. Second, I have campaigned to change things radically. So I turned my experience as a young accountant at a time when no one was talking tax havens to positive use. I am not ashamed of that. How do you think the process of change hap[pens but for things like this?

    As for my wife, she is a working partner. We have already discussed a management issue this morning. She is engaged daily with what I do. The only real concern is that with 1% of profit she is underpaid. For the last three years paying her more would have saved us tax. I have not done that. Before then she was a working GP and often earned more than I did: diverting income to her would have saved no tax. But I have not changed the situation and nor has she in either scenario. There is no tax planning: just a reflection of a commercial reality.’

    The only real concern is that with 1% of profit she is underpaid.

  2. He persuaded another bloody GP to desist from providing healthcare in order to assist him produce this crap!!! In what way is this a contribution?

  3. Rob/interested:

    The rest of the post is even better:

    ‘The funds management industry is dependent upon tax avoidance to create its ‘returns’

    Tax avoidance is legal

    It does not mean I have to condone it’

    I guess Private sector pensioners are to be left to the mercy of the ‘Courageous State’ then – Pyongyang here we come! Two possibilities – either he is so stupid he does not realise what he is saying – a worrying possibility, or he actually believes this and is power mad enough to ‘demand’ people listen to it – a terrifying prospect. Either way, it’s high time he was fisked out of public life….

  4. In answer to his question, I would be proud if my father set up business in a tax haven. I am happy to do it myself. My son, if I had one, would probably be more embarrassed by the thought of me filling Polly (h/t Mr Ecks)

  5. “We have already discussed a management issue this morning.”

    Mr M: “I’ve been asked to go on the telly; can you pick the children up from school?”

    Mrs M: “Only if you mow the lawn first.”

  6. Fucking hilarious.

    His blog says Ireland gave him grants, that’s not what he said to an audience in Ireland, he said that was tax.

    His blog said he was a naive young accountant involved in the company, but his CV claims he set the company up from start to production.

    His blog claims he was only involved for a short time, elsewhere he says he stayed as an advisor for 6 years and helped to float it.

    In print he’s the man the brought Trivial Pursuit to the Uk, he claims it shows he was a great employer and entrepreneur. But ask him about the tax issue and suddenly the whole thing was nothing. Move along please.

    Walter fucking Mitty.

  7. “As for my wife, she is a working partner. We have already discussed a management issue this morning. She is engaged daily with what I do. The only real concern is that with 1% of profit she is underpaid.”

    Lying cunt. If someone is ‘engaged daily’ with a commercial partnership then they are more than a 1% partner.

    1% is what you put someone down as just to make things legal – I need a partner, I’ll be 99%, you be 1% and keep out of the way. There is no commercial reality that a 99 to 1% split covers, just a legal requirement.

  8. @Jim,

    Indeed, go back a few years before he the JRCT grants, TRUK was bringing in <40K a year, Mrs. Ritchie was a GP, so clearly a tax advantage in sticking all the income to Ritchie.

    And if now there's no tax saving, to use his usual standard of evidence, why do it? It smells so must be fishy.

    Laughably when I challenged him on th the 99%/1% issue years ago, his argument then was "it's legal, so ok". Not the same standard he applies to others then.

  9. ‘The funds management industry is dependent upon tax avoidance to create its ‘returns’

    I have no idea what this means. What tax is being avoided? If I invest in an index fund and the stock market rises, that’s a return, isn’t it? What tax haven’t I paid?

  10. @John Galt
    April 8, 2016 at 2:40 pm
    He gets 99% and the wife gets 1%.

    That seems a bit like inequality, is he saying his wife’s contribution is next to worthless?

    Indeed. The split is clearly the wrong way around.

    I know nothing about Mrs Richie, but by a process of elimination, she is clearly the brains of the outfit.

  11. @Soarer:

    I don’t know Richie’s dog Hector but I think he’s probably above Richie in the brains department.

  12. Latest Murphy post complains about “financial industry trolls”. Read that as “people who know what they are talking about”.

  13. Alex

    Anyone using the word ‘troll’ is automatically suspect – especially when in Murphy’s case it is a synonym for ‘people whose opinion I differ with but can’t out debate’….

Leave a Reply

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