Ritchie can’t even connect his arguments

The opening question sought to discover why I opposed tax havens. I gave two reasons (one has to be brief when doing these things). The first was that tax havens are deliberately designed to increase inequality in the world, and do so. Thart’s because they permit those with wealth to opt out of taxation.

My second reason is that tax havens are deliberately designed to undermine the world’s markets, whether they be for capital or trade. This is because market theory (and practice) requires that inf0rmation be available to all participants if they are to make the best possible decisions that will reduce risk, keep the cost of capital to the minimum poissible, allocate capital efficiently, and so maximise prodtcive invetsment and the consequnet opprtunities that can be created for people to enjoy. By creating opacity, delivberately, tax havens seek to udnermine this process.

And taxation distorts the allocation of capital as well of course. Idiot sodding twat.

In this twofold attack, one on the democratic right of governemtns to tax as they will in accordance with the mandate that they have, and the other on the right of markets to operate in the best interests of society tax havens pose a threat to the two pillars on which werstern society has been built. The charge sheet cannot be more serious than that.

Governments get to tax domestically as much as they can enforce. They don’t get to do so internationally.

And who in buggery said markets are supposed to operate in the best interests of society? That they happen to do so pretty well is nice but that’s not the point nor purpose. The aim instead is in the interests of those who participate in those markets.

Idiot sodding twat.

Having explored these issues I was then asked a final question, which was what the world would look like of there were no tax havens. I suggested three things.

First, I said we could follow the money. And that would mean more tax would be paid by the right people, in the right place, at the right rate and at the riught time. This would reduce the tax gap, increase tax yield from the wealthy who owe it, reduce government deficits, increase social investment, raise productivity, end the need for austerity and transform the current state of government financing that has had so many pernicious conbsequnces for people around the world. We would all be better off as a reuslt.

Even Ritchie’s estimates of offshore losses amount to 0.5% (yes, half of one percent) of gross government revenue globally. Hands up everyone who thinks that government having half a percent more money is going to lead to kittens gambolling down rainbows farted by unicorns?

Idiot sodding twat.

But more than that, capital and trade markets would also be liberated to work to best effect. The risk in these markets would be reduced and the rate of return required on capital would fall as a consequnce.

Dear God he’s an idiot sodding twat. It’s the change in rate of return required by capital as a result of the taxation of profits which leads to the taxation of profits being incident, in part, upon labour. If he wants to reduce the rate of return required then he should be arguing to abolish corporation tax. The idiot sodding twat.

This would increase investment and the return to shareholders. Equyity markets could then peform their real task of allocating capital to its most effective users. Growth would follow, and with it an increase in prosperity.

Yes, not taxing capital returns would achieve that.

Idiot sodding twat.

In other woirds, from whichever side of the debate you come, and from both (as I do) then the result of tackling tax havens is an increase in well-being for everyone in the world. I am unambiguous: I am sure that this is true. It is just about impossible for it to be otherwise and tax havens have no way on earth they can counter the argument.

See above you idiot sodding twat.

All they can do is throw money at preserving the status quo. I was asked if I could see that status quo suyrving. I made clear that in 13 years of cmapigining we have seen massive change on this issue. And we will see a great deal more. The status quyo is dying. Tax havens will be history at some time in the future. And maybe sooner than they expect.

Is anyone able to see anything substantial that they have achieved? No, seriously. Have their own estimates of the amount of offshore tax dodging fallen as a result of the things they’ve achieved? If not, then they don’t think they’ve achieved anything serious, do they?

Idiot sodding twat.

Jeez, one almost wishes there really was a Manx Wet Ops squad.

15 thoughts on “Ritchie can’t even connect his arguments”

  1. He’s an idiot sodding twat for not using a spell checker. Spell checkers are built into just about any software that allows entry of test. Some even do basic grammar checking. If he can’t even use a spell checker, its not surprising he can’t even research properly.

  2. “In other woirds, from whichever side of the debate you come, and from both (as I do)”

    Does this imply that he is on both sides of the debate? I am struggling with all of this. He seems to think that cash balances just accumulate in tax havens and that they never get used for investment. Idiot doesn’t begin to describe the Murph.

  3. Jeez, one almost wishes there really was a Manx Wet Ops squad.

    There is, but there is no way that we would put Ritchie on the list. We learned that from the Iraq War.

    You don’t kill Comical Ali and that is who Ritchie is as far as the economic war between the Marxists and the Neo-Liberals.

  4. I was asked if I could see that status quo suyrving

    Oh, I don’t know, they’ve been around for 30-years or more and still tour occasionally. They’ll do fine.

  5. Calm down, Tim. The world is full of knaves and fools. Drink a schooner of something, and make suitable plans for your retirement.

  6. What, you mean like several jurisdictions away from where this idiot twat might have some influence?

  7. Gamecock said:
    “I suspect excessive drinking.”

    I wish I did, but I suspect he’s too puritan to get decently trollied.

  8. I would assume some form of dictation speech to text from the grammar, but can’t imagine any system would generate that many misspellings. Possibly trying to use a touch screen keyboard without autocorrect seems more likely

  9. @TW Perhaps you should, instead, be attacking the letter written by the 300+ economists for the corruption conference variously headlined as
    “Tax havens have no economic justification say top economists”.
    Mind you the Americano-Brit signatory , Angus Deaton (Nobel Laureate) has also written “Land markets far from generating saving and growth are inimical to capital formation”, so not much support from economists for the whole system which you seem to support because it gets Donald Trump loads of women.

  10. Murphy’s software has special predictive text.

    Murphy starts to thump the keyboard with his fists. The software analyses the keystrokes and deduces that because this is Murphy typing I am required to output garbage.

  11. @TW Where’s the link to Forbes?
    Being pedantic: its not so much attacking properly qualified economists’ opinions that counts but effectively refuting them on their terms (not your terms which consist of simply saying tax havens aren’t run in the general interest :that’s kinda the problem as Obama said when told tax havens were legal)

  12. What has he achieved? Frankly, an awful lot for the accountancy profession and the Big 4 in particular.

    I believe him to be a great work generator as more rules/regulations, more profile for tax, more scare stories and more changes = more work. Consequently, their tax departments have never been so busy.

    It’s relatively easy to check their accounts and determine that their tax service lines have all grown handsomely over the last 13 years.

Leave a Reply

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