Skip to content

Because it is my idea, mine I tell ‘ee

Many organisations on the left of UK politics are now calling for wealth taxes. The Taxing Wealth Report 2024 does not do so. It is appropriate to explain why that is the case.

There’s really no other explanation. Spud has decided. Without bothering to read the literature – lots of bright people have devoted time and effort to understanding this area over the decades and centuries – and without bothering to bounce his conclusions off anyone else. But Spud has decided. Therefore his decisions is correct. And that’s just the way it is. And should be – according to Spud.

To suggest that he’s got to say something different in order to justify spending the Popham Trust’s money would be scurrilous. So, we won’t do that.

13 thoughts on “Because it is my idea, mine I tell ‘ee”

  1. “To suggest that he’s got to say something different in order to justify spending the Popham Trust’s money would be scurrilous.”

    The ‘justification’ for the Popham Trusts’ money has been Spud cutting and pasting lots of old ideals he’s been droning on about for ages. Meanwhile Colin Hines justification for his cut seems to be making a cardboard placard and asking his neighbours if they’d like a heat pump.

  2. From
    Grants Made

    Larger grants made since the decision was taken to spend down:

    Climate 2025
    Corporate Europe Observatory
    Finance for the Future
    Green New Deal UK
    Rethinking Security
    Stop Ecocide International

    The words that spring to mind are: You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.

  3. Bongo

    That’s genuinely brightened my day up!

    Although the likelihood of any of these grant recipients saying:

    ‘You can go about your business’ is on a par with North Korea becoming a libertarian Mecca….

  4. Is there a single example of a country making a success of taxing its wealthier citizens to excess? Or is it true that the end result of doing so always means that its poorer citizens end up even poorer than they were before?

  5. First, a disclaimer. I have not read the full “Taxing Wealth Report” mainly because, well, it was written by Richard Murphy.

    However, in it there is a summary of wealth categories, which the repellent little sh!t wants to get his grasping, greedy paws on. One of these categories being Private Pension Wealth.

    Nowhere is the report is there any reference to public sector pension promises.

    So, my private pension provision, in all its uncertainty, is wealth, ripe for the plucking by rapacious spendthrifts like Murphy. Public sector pensioners with their certainty, inflation uprating, guarantees and taxpayer funding is not wealth in Murphy’s mind.

    Where’s my fcking baseball bat and a train ticket to Ely?

  6. These folks calling for wealth taxes always assume that the wealthy have excess, liquid cash readily available (think Scrooge McDuck money vaults).

    In reality, handing over wealth taxes means liquidating otherwise-productive assets, reducing to some degree production and/or employment.

    Jealousy makes for poor public tax policy.

  7. BF

    Remember his response to the great Stuart Cauldwell on the thread from last week when he questioned Murphy’s actuarial expertise amongst several other areas. Anyone questioning the funding for public sector pensions is apparently questioning the principle of them. ‘Moving the goalposts’ for those studying his output for logical fallacies and ‘appeal to authority’ when he defended his risible titles as evidence of his expertise, before finally going to an ‘Ad hominem’ and making Stuart block number x thousand for ‘trolling’.

    I am hoping his ULU pension provision is removed and he’s reduced to begging on the street. He’ll get nothing from me or many others I imagine!!

  8. Having met some serious tax practitioners over the years my money is on them finding loopholes and schemes (and gaining more fees) as it’s just a new game of whack-a-mole for them and the revenue to play.

  9. I’ve frequency highlight the issue with his pension proposal, whereby higher rate tax-paying public sector workers would either have to have massive contribution increases or benefit reductions, unless the proposal would only fall on to private pensions.
    In which case it would be highly unfair and break his ‘principle’ of horizontal equity.

    I lost count of the number of times I tried to highlight this inconsistency and also pointed out the hypocrisy in how none of his proposed tax changes affect him.

    I tried various comments saying the same thing in different ways, under different names / email addresses from different devices / IP addresses, but he never posted or responded to them , for obvious reason.

    As we know he hates to have his ideas criticised by someone who knows what they are talking about.

  10. The Supreme Court here as just accepted a case disputing the charging of taxes on unrealized gains. All the usual sites such as Vox, Politico et. al. are wetting their panties that this will rule wealth taxes unconstitutional. This has already happened with source taxes, much to the consternation of blue states.

  11. “We had committed ourselves to a wealth tax; but in five years I found it impossible to draft one which would yield enough revenue to be worth the administrative cost and political hassle.”
    Denis Healey writing in is autobiography.

    Definition of insanity etc…….

  12. @Stuart Caldwell, well done for your sterling efforts. You are absolutely right of course, but with Murphy and pensions there is a more personal issue.

    Murphy’s personal pension planning has been a disaster. His pension is invested in 1% bonds and it is worth very little. This is why he is still working at the age of 65 and continually hustling for grants. He will be relying on his wife’s NHS pension (she is a retired GP) to pay for his retirement. Of course, he will never admit this.

Leave a Reply

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