Skip to content

Err, yes

Now, let’s first of all talk about Dan Neidle before then discussing why he’s wrong.

Dan is a lawyer. I hate to say it, but they’re not known to be good at numbers.

Nor do many of them have much grasp of economics.

And we’ve evidence that accountants are better at economics, do we?

And then there’s poisoning the well:

That said though, Dan was for many years a senior tax lawyer at one of the largest law firms in the UK. The sort of firm that only the largest companies and the very wealthy can use. That indicates a bias on his part: he chose to serve their interests. It’s fair to note his biases.

I presume that he thinks that he made that case by suggesting that in the recent history of tax governments have not made more than 4% of their revenues from wealth and property.

And that’s not true in the slightest. UK govt makes 11% of tax revenues from taxation of property. Rates – £50 billion a year at least.

10 thoughts on “Err, yes”

  1. I guess in the hierarchy of the tax world a senior tax lawyer at a big firm ranks far higher and is far better paid than an accountant and self appointed expert with a charity shop book. This must sting the potato’s ego

  2. The law firms that only the largest companies and the very wealthy can use tend to be among the smaller law firms. That restriction on clientele will restrict the size of a law firm that can cover its salary bill.
    Lawyers may not be very good at economics but they do understand that much.

  3. In the comments on that blog, the self-anointed tax expert argues with someone about the VAT treatment of interest, quotes the decision in a tax case which he’s clearly misunderstood and, yup, gets it wrong.

  4. Contrary to what Murphy believes I would expect anyone who was, “for many years a senior tax lawyer at one of the largest law firms in the UK”, to be quite good with numbers. Could Murphy perhaps be wrong?

  5. Typical Murphy. Niedle’s politics are on the and he openly supports higher taxes. He and Murphy should be allies, but Murphy is pathologically incapable of acknowledging his mistakes, in particular when they are pointed out to him by someone with considerably greater expertise than him.

    It looks like Murphy is cutting and pasting his old work promoting every possible tax rise possible. No doubt he’ll claim the credit if any are implemented.

  6. So apparently Neidle has’ to do better’?

    Perhaps Neidle should adopt Murphy’s tactics – block him on Twitter, call him a neoliberal or ‘Fascist’ and assume that renders his arguments invalid.

    The entire piece reads like something from a teenage strop on Instagram. What a sad individual he is.

  7. Ohh, no Missus. It was better than that.

    Murphy’s wrong, yes, about the 4%. Dan Neidle was also wrong. I corrected him. He said “Ah, yes, you’re right, my brain fart” which is a nice change in itself. But then Murphy is still wrong and Neidle is now right. Because Murphy has decided that “taxing wealth increases at a rate of 4%” is the same as “gains 4% of tax revenue from taxing wealth” which is a really, truly, idiotic position to take.

  8. This is what really annoys Murphy about Dan Niedle

    ‘Tax Policy Associates Ltd is financially independent. It accepts no donations, charges no fees, and undertakes no commercial work. All fees for writing and speaking are donated to charity.’

    Niedle gives to charities. Murphy screws charities for every penny he can get.

  9. I am discovering, painfully at work due to a peer completely lacking the ability, that abstract thought and logic are not innately available to many people. Basic logic “y follows x does not mean x caused y” and much else is beyond many people. They think, if one can call it that, by instinct and their instincts have been evolving to keep them alive in a natural rather than abstract world.

    Previously many would have either starved or become manual workers. Now the superficially smarter ones work in offices and throw sand in the gears of industry.

Leave a Reply

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