Well, yes, could be right here

the one unexpected element, which was an increase in the dividend tax rate by 1.25%.

Dealing with the latter first, this should be seen for what it is. It is a sop to criticism. It supposedly addresses the issue of national insurance avoidance by those who pay themselves using dividends from limited companies. I have no particular problem with tackling that issue, but there is a flaw. The implication is that genuine investment income – the dividends received in ISAs and by savings institutions, interest and rents – should all remain exempt from this charge. Implicit in this move was another attack on working people as a consequence, with the very obvious intention being that genuine wealth should be untouched by the demand that it contribute to society. The bias could not be clearer.

Genuine wealth contributing to society by being, umm, invested in it perhaps? That capital stock does have to come from somewhere, after all. Whatever is to be said about MMT and money printing it’s still true that for there to be a capital stock someone, somewhere, has had to delay their consumption….

18 thoughts on “Well, yes, could be right here”

  1. Tim – your analysis would require some understanding of second order consequences and he has repeatedly shown he has none whatsoever. I think the line of argument is that ‘wealthy’ people are able to afford ISAs and Pensions which provide a shelter from tax and that money should be given to the poorest in society. It’s scarcely worthy of a teenager. To see someone in their 60s peddling it is almost cringeworthy.

  2. @Van_Patten

    It may be that not having the riches he no doubt thinks he deserves, he resents other people his age being financially comfortable. He can dress that up as ‘justice’ if he wants but the envy and spite is there for all to see.

  3. I’ve sent him a Greggs voucher. He’s clearly running low on something, and anyway he needs to get more in touch with his inner mile end road.

  4. As far as i can work out the potato’s position on tax is this
    1) tax doesn’t pay for government spending
    2) the govt needs MOAR tax to pay for spending
    3) Govt spending pays for itself because of the multiplier effect raises an equivalent amount of tax to pay for the spending
    4) Tax is raised to control inflation but we need MOAR tax regardless of the rate of inflation.

    I was confused, then i remembered the potato is an idiot.

  5. Did a few back of the fag packet calculations on the policy proposal, and I’m beginning to wonder how it will interact with Inheritance Tax over the next ten to fifteen years or so. I suspect that it will increase the take (at 40% over the threshold).

    The politics of it are potentially really quite cute.

  6. Bloke in North Dorset

    “Richard Murphy
    @RichardJMurphy
    I got asked to do GB News today. They really shouldn’t have wasted their money making the call.”

  7. Sadly, I can;t see that, I’m blocked

    Right-click the link above, select “Open Link in Private Window” (or similar, it depends on the browser.)

  8. Diogenes/ moqifen

    I wonder how he’d react to a cabinet minister refusing to go on Channel 4 News? What a sanctimonious cretin he is…

  9. “Sadly, I can;t see that, I’m blocked”

    Log out for two seconds? I’m not on it and it never blocks me from occasionally viewing. Yes, fair enough, why bother…

  10. You can also just open the link in an incognito window (or private tab, or whatever else it’s called) in your browser.

  11. Beatiful reply to Murphy by Rule Brexitannia:

    “No idea who you are. Would have be nice to have learned more about you and your opinions. Never mind.”

Leave a Reply

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