Skip to content


The obvious question that then arises refers to who might pay this additional tax. To look at
this issue earnings by decile20 as reported by HM Revenue & Customs for 2019/20 have been
matched with the likely allocation of the average wealth increase as noted above in that same
year, assuming that the wealth increase is apportioned by decile in the same proportion as
wealth holding by decile

Yep, entirely ignoring age groups.

14 thoughts on “Ahahahaha”

  1. Professor Yaffle on the bankruptcy of Birmingham City Council:

    The failure of neoliberalism is written all over this, not that neoliberals will see this that way

    No doubt, but why doesn’t Brum just pay its bills with Diversity?

  2. @ Steve
    Brum Labour council connived with male-led unions to pay male unionised employees more than female employees for years and years. Then, eventually, someone screamed “that’s illegal”.
    Where does neoliberalism come into it?

  3. The aim of these suggested reforms, which will amount to more than twenty in total, will be to:

    Improve the horizontal equity of the UK tax system, meaning that the likelihood that all income of similar amount will be taxed at equivalent rates whatever its source.

    Can anyone translate this – presumably it means ending reliefs so that income is taxed uniformly across the board. Guess it might lead to people hoarding money at home or an increase in the black economy? Maybe he moonlights as a ‘cash in hand’ builder in his spare time?

    Improve the vertical equity of the UK tax system, meaning that the tax system becomes more progressive than it is now (which would not be hard).

    Yes – encourage even more entrepeneurs and other people with wealth to emigrate and leave the UK. Quite unsurprising that a ‘professor’ is unable to calculate what 99% or 100% of zero is.

    Reduce the opportunities for tax avoidance within the UK tax system.

    Governments have been trying to do this for decades (if not previously prior to that even but certainly since WW II. Does he really imagine this is a ‘novel’ approach? He and Hines really must be facing the pinch.

    Reduce the number of tax spillovers[8] within the UK tax system, which are the perverse incentives that exist within many of our taxes that undermine the effectiveness of other UK taxes.

    The problem with ‘reductions’ and changes in loopholes is that they invariably create greater numbers of anomalies which leads to even more people being brought into the net of taxation. Simplicity of tax would usually increase revenue rates. And what chance, when the man is entirely ignorant of either taxation or economics of his proposals being:

    – feasible
    – economically viable
    – Politically realistic

    Provide a whole range of suggestions for ways in which additional tax revenues might be raised without harming the well-being of those on lower incomes in the UK who already pay the highest overall rates of tax.

    So with public expenditure at an all time high, taxation at the highest overall level for at least 5 decades if not longer and with a national debt that is likely to leave the next ten generations dependent on eating rat he wants to raise more?

    What more needs to be said? – he needs sectioning for his own benefit as well as the wider community

  4. Steve

    This was my favourite bit of the piece:

    There was a time when local authorities were the foundation of effective government in the UK. They provided energy, transport, housing, education, and even health services, often without much support from central government. Birmingham was at the forefront of this under the inspired leadership of Joseph Chamberlain. Funding themselves with a combination of local taxes and borrowing, mainly from the communities that they served, financial probity was essential if the confidence of those who provided them with capital was to be maintained.

    But Joe Chamberlain never provided:

    – recognition of the 273 genders which exist
    – the relevant Environmental Social Governance to combat the Climate crisis
    – Gender, race and LGBTQ+ Equity Audits

    among other ‘essential services’ – one wonders who the inhabitants of 19th century Birmingham coped – probably why they were responsible for the slave trade so more tax will be needed to pay for reparations.

    Either way those damned ‘neoliberals’ have a lot to answer for…

  5. john77 – Idk, but it’s the same situation as Glasgow City Council.

    The council were paying men who go out into the freezing dark at 5am to scrape shit off the streets a little bit more for the hard, physical, and unpleasant jobs they did.

    Dinner ladies and women who sit on their fanny in front of a computer all day were not given the same pay, nor were men who do indoor work. They agreed to a salary that was appropriate for their duties. That should be the end of it.

    But in both cases, the councils seem to have deliberately sabotaged their own legal case, and have done little or nothing to protect their taxpayers from another needlessly absurd ruling from the Tena for Men wearing retards we call judges in this country.

    VP – I bet Joseph Chamberlain never even had an urgent review of statues to make sure they’re not racist tho.

  6. Thanks I hadn’t read about the pay equality issue but had assumed it was one of the ‘similar jobs’ cases (where the jobs aren’t really similar) that looked at predominately female indoor jobs vs predominantly male outdoor jobs and was not a real equal pay for equal jobs situation.
    As for the suggestion that the council sabotaged their own case that’s not surprising as the capture of organisations is pretty thorough, just look at all the organisations claiming to be racist

  7. @ Steve
    If you want an example it’s the Cammell Laird Case where the cook’s hourly rate was paid during their contractual breaks every two or three hours while the guys working outdoors in the snow didn’t get breaks. So the cooks working comfortably indoors were actually paid a higher rate than the workers but got awarded a pay rise because the formula for comparing rates was moronic.
    Glasgow was party-political . The deep-seated corruption in Glasgow Labour Party was a (IMHO the) major reason for the rise of the SNP. The new SNP administration in Glasgow was only too happy to blame Glasgow Labour for sex discrimination, The cost to taxpayers didn’t matter because they could, and did, blame Labour.

  8. @john77: hence my father’s wisdom – we must rub along with the English or else we’ll be ruled by the Glasgow Labour Party.

    (He was too proper a chap to say “by the Glasgow Irish”, but that’s what it would have amounted to.)

  9. local authorities were the foundation of effective government in the UK. They provided energy, transport, housing, education, and even health services

    Yeah, I remember (not personally) when our local hospital was stolen by Whitehall, along with our local Waterworks, our local electricity undertaking, our local gas company. All at the same time. Wonder who did that? (cough!)1948(cough!)

  10. @ jgh
    I was only two in 1948, so I don’t remember it but I am utterly sure that local authorities never provided energy.
    I was once (many moons ago) Hon Treasurer of a Charity one of whose aims was providing coals to the needy in a small geographical area. One of the Charity Commission rules was that Charities could not relieve (reduce) costs falling upon the rates. So Murphy’s claims are incompatible with English law.

  11. @John77: “I am utterly sure that local authorities never provided energy.”

    In my home town the Council had owned the gasworks. That had been commonplace in Britain. I don’t know who had owned the elec biz. I checked on Wokeypedia:

    “Ownership of Scottish gas undertakings
    Most of the larger gas undertakings had been owned by local authorities … However the same authorities were also owners of electricity generating and supply companies (the main rivals of the gas industry); the local authorities had felt no need to promote competition.”

    I can see a case for nationalising the elec biz but I’m damned if I can see any sensible case for the gasworks. I mean, in 1949 there was no natural gas and therefore no question of national distribution of gas.

  12. @ dearieme
    Sorry! I had just forgotten the gasworks
    I have never known who owned them prior to Attlee.
    I just assumed that they had been built with private capital.

  13. When I were a lad in Rochdale, the Corporation, i.e. the council, owned everything except the electricity, which went to the CEGB, National Grid and North West Electricity (NORWEB) after the War. Water was known as Corporation Pop for this reason. They ran the buses too.

Leave a Reply

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