What the Senior Lecturer fails to understand

Well, everything, fnarr, fnarr.

But:

The Green New Deal requires wealth taxation

Wealth taxation is generally contraindicated in economics. Because it makes the future poorer than it need be.

Thus we think that wealth taxation is a bad thing.

Ritchie thinks that the Green New Deal is a good thing – on balance. Sure, he recognises there are costs to it as well as benefits.

At which point he fails to understand – the more contraindicated things you add to the Green New Deal then the more the costs rise as against the benefits. So, insisting that we must have wealth taxation as a part of the GND means that we get, at minimum, closer to the point that we shouldn’t have the GND.

Then there’s just stupidity:

Tax avoidance is another form of rentiersim. Remember that this activity is not things like using an ISA or paying into a pension. Tax avoidance is about exploiting loopholes in the law to not pay tax in ways that legislators never intended. The use of tax havens – that have been deliberately created in most cases to facilitate this process – is an obvious (but not the only) indication of this activity.

Legislators create tax havens. Therefore the use of them must have been intended by legislators.

Oh, and the reason why we need wealth taxes? Because rich people might get away without having to do what they’re told by the Senior Lecturer. Therefore we must have no rich people.

18 thoughts on “What the Senior Lecturer fails to understand”

  1. Remember that this activity is not things like using an ISA or paying into a pension.

    I expect you would not have to wade too far upstream in his river of effluence to discover claims that these were indeed tax avoidance, or even tax evasion in the more lurid table-thumping efforts.

  2. Bloke in North Dorset

    I was listening to an article about Elizabeth Warren’s proposed wealth tax on the super rich on my way back. Apparently at peak 8 European countries had wealth taxes and now its only 3. The reasons for the decline were complexity costs outweighing benefits and capital flight.

    But hey, the Fat One has decreed it will work so lets not worry about the real world.

  3. Bloke in North Dorset

    Slightly OT

    Chris Snowdon’s got a good post up about a Laffer Curve in the wild – alcohol taxes in the Baltic states.

  4. My memory may be at fault, but I think Murphy used to say that pension funds were tax avoidance, and that he advised his few remaining clients against using them.

  5. “Legislators create tax havens.”

    Well, there’s no UK tax legislation that ‘creates’ tax havens.

    There is UK tax legislation that legislates against tax avoidance by diverting profits to lower tax regimes, such as the Controlled Foreign Companies legislation which talks of a ‘lower level of taxation’ which is defined as less than 75% of the corresponding UK tax which would be paid.

    That such legislation exists in some situations and not in others strongly suggests that the areas situations where it does not exist are areas where UK legislators absolutely intend the consequences.

    Murphy is once again demonstrating that he either doesn’t know the law or that he is deliberately misleading.

  6. Murphy expands on his wealth tax idea

    “…such a tax can be selective. It need not charge the owner of a London semi-detached home.”

    Nor, one assumes, one in Kingsley Walk, Ely.

    Cunt.

  7. Bloke in North Dorset

    “such a tax can be selective”

    Meaning we can ensure carve-outs for our rich lefty friends. Isn’t that what goes on in France, with exemptions for art and other trappings of the uber wealth?

  8. Bloke In Westerville

    Tax avoidance is about exploiting loopholes in the law to not pay tax in ways that legislators never intended.

    Incorrect. Completely, totally and abysmally incorrect. And of course, it is the Fat One who appropriates for himself the authority to pronounce what legislators intended (and didn’t intend).

  9. There has been a very clear definition of tax avoidance at large for quite some time now. If Murphy was a tax expert as he claims then he would know this and not need constantly offer new definitions.

  10. Bloke In Westerville

    There has been a very clear definition of tax avoidance at large for quite some time now. If Murphy was a tax expert as he claims then he would know this and not need constantly offer new definitions.

    Actually, the “definition” of tax avoidance that the Fat One uses is perhaps the only thing he has been consistent about over all these years. It just so happens that his definition has nothing to do with the definition used by governments, legislatures, courts, taxing authorities or tax professionals, and rightfully so.

  11. Ritchie has been consistent in arguing that:
    – tax avoidance is whatever he says it is at any particular moment in time
    – taxes should be raised on everyone who earns more or has more assets than he does
    – he should be given a peerage, the chairmanship of HMRC, and a position on numerous taxpayer funded quangos

  12. Why doesn’t captain tiresome fuck off somewhere with no internet instead of peddling his tiresome drivel. @ sam jones – at one stage capt tiresome was insisting that owning your own house was tax avoidance on a par with offshore tax havens. Perhaps he’ll take his own scare story about climate change to heart and stop using electricity and any form of heating and we can pray for a harsh winter. He doesn’t really believe in any of this green guff (his non actions speak louder than his words) – he just sees the green lobby/climate change as the easiest marks likely to fund him.

  13. If using an ISA isn’t tax avoidance, what is it?

    I use mine because I’m trying to avoid taxes.

    Is there a preferred word of lower degree, “tax planning”, “tax efficiency”?

  14. Surreptitious Evil

    If using an ISA isn’t tax avoidance, what is it?

    Deliberately engineered tax behaviour? But this is the point the WGCE forces upon us. Tax avoidance is usually understood to be doing something slightly at variance with the rules but not actually against them (which is tax avoidance).

    He lumps ISAs, tax benefits on pension contributions, not getting a VAT bill from small suppliers (who probably aren’t VAT registered anyway! I paid our recent painter by bank transfer but his formal invoice doesn’t mention VAT. Am I, or he, an evil tax cheat? Does he gross £75k+ a year?), tax free loans from employers for season tickets and all the other deliberate things that government nudges us to do by providing some tax break in with deliberate avoidance, which he lumps further in with tax evasion.

  15. It’s this “slightly at variance with the rules but not actually against them” that I’m not sure about, since most of the time I’ve seen “tax avoidance” thrown around it’s been an allegation against companies rather than individuals, yet their behaviour has often been far from the edge of legality. Indeed it’s often been in complete agreement with how anyone could reasonably imagine the tax system would work (eg they recorded a cost which offsets their revenue and reduces their profits, or they take advantage of a tax break on R&D or whatever – pretty much the business equivalent of using an ISA) even if they don’t like that it works that way (eg a firm operating as a foreign company that is selling into the UK, making use of laws or treaties that explicitly allow firms to operate like this).

  16. @Surreptitious Evil July 31, 2019 at 8:40 am

    Re: SE Painter & Decorator

    Many ask customer to supply or directly pay for materials to stay below VAT threshold.

    .
    As for Mr Potato: “Tax evasion is whatever I say it is today” yesterday & tomorrow are different days.

Leave a Reply

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