Skip to content

Tax after coronavirus

The committee report is now out:

79. Tim Worstall, Fellow of the Adam Smith Institute, was concerned about the nature of
a wealth tax, in that it would tax wealth accumulated in the past. He told us:

A retroactive tax is an appalling idea. It is akin to theft. Roy Jenkins did
this in the 1960s. He retroactively imposed a 130% tax at the top end of
capital incomes on the previous tax year that was already closed. That is
just appalling behaviour. However much Government need the money, that
is just not what we should be doing. Tax, just like any other form of law,
should be: “It starts today. If you do not agree with it, you can change your
behaviour in the future to avoid it and not do the activity [ … ]88

13 thoughts on “Tax after coronavirus”

  1. Then again he loved wine and women … Maybe a questionable epitaph in this day and age. But who am I to judge.

  2. Denis Healey introduced retrospective changes to the Death Tax (called Estate Duty at the time, perhaps?).

  3. Christ. It’s hilarious. I couldn’t be bothered to read it but my bet is spud’s written contribution was by far the longest. On and on it goes. And in the footnotes “and I invented CbyCR”. Pity the poor sod who had to read it.

  4. My grandfather’s mate, from the same Helsinki hoods, he always had a c-cassette of his mate’s music in his 1972 Merc, reg HAH-100, now how did I suddenly remember all that…I clearly remember this stupid lad knocking on the car door window, complaining about the capitalist car and something about blocking the street.My granddad, the killer of many men (albeit all of them Russian), gave him the sex and travel option.We boys were laughing in the back. It happened in a town of Salo, nan was somewhere buying mustard or sausages the place was famous of.

  5. Bloke in North Dorset

    Andrew C,

    Spud get a footnote in the main body:

    46 In written evidence, Richard Murphy argued that “there is, in fact, strong evidence that the higher the aggregate total tax paid in a country the higher is its GDP per capita. […] There is, as a result, no clear evidence that there is an obvious overall limit to the level of taxation that the UK economy can bear without undesirable or counterproductive harm to economic growth.” Professor Richard Murphy (Director at Tax Research LLP)

    Is he arguing for 100% tax?

    And is he allowed to represent himself as a Prof?

    67 Murphy, Professor Richard (Director, Tax Research LLP) (TAC0100)

  6. no clear evidence that there is an obvious overall limit to the level of taxation that the UK economy can bear

    Oh come on, he must be having a laffer. The great thing is the use of “clear” and “obvious” whose role here is not to be clear or obvious but, on the contrary, to obfuscate: if his statement is challenged this construction allows that there may well be some evidence and it neeed not be entirely obvious.

  7. “67 Murphy, Professor Richard (Director, Tax Research LLP) (TAC0100)”

    Holds on… Did they simply park P³’s “title” as his given name? Comedy gold…

  8. Next time I go to the pub I’ll drink a toast to your grandfather, Jussi.

    Might be a while though, since I don’t go there too often.

  9. Bloke in China (Germany province)

    We’ve been stealing from the future for so long there is no future left to steal from. So we have to resort to stealing from the past.

Leave a Reply

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