Richard Murphy

How to solve the football problem!

After that? A review to make sure that they make bigger returns to their communities via tax paid.

It never stops, does it?

The P³ also entirely misses the point of what the superleague is trying to do:

Third, none of these clubs looks to be in a good financial position. The trend is for tiny profit margins on revenue and heavy gearing – meaning most are very vulnerable to debt repayment.

Yes, entirely so, it’s a standard analysis of European sports clubs with leagues and promotion/relegation that near all revenue will flow through to the players who gain the promotion/avoid the relegation. This does not happen in American sports leagues where promotion does not happen and also there’s a hard payroll cap.

What’s really needed?

Some serious debt right off by their owners, for a start.

And some serious pay cuts for players, next.

Then there is a requirement to ensure that they can live within their means – and not require ongoing finance to cover losses as a part of their business model.

Which is exactly what the superleague is trying to do. Introduce the American-style monopolistic positions of the extant teams with a hard payroll cap. Therefore less will flow through to the players, more can be used to pay down debt, provide a profit to owners and reduce the need for continual capital inflows.

This is all known stuff. The Sports Economist did a whole book on it a few years back if memory serves.

So, what’s the P³ recommending? What the superleague is trying to do even as he opposes what the superleague is trying to do. Well done there, well done that man.

This is a new meaning of the word “expert”

Wealth tax rise could raise £174bn to tackle Covid-19, expert says

Which expert is that?

UK taxes should be central to debate on paying for pandemic, suggests Richard Murphy

Ah.

The government has the potential to raise up to £174bn a year to help cope with the Covid-19 crisis if it taxed wealth at the same rate as income, a UK tax expert has said.

Aha. Actually, Ahahahahahaha.

Taxing wealth at 45% annually ain’t gonna work you know.

Richard Murphy, a professor in political economy at City University in London, said income was being taxed at almost 10 times the rate of wealth – and that the disparity should be central to any debate about who should pay for the pandemic.

Well one is a stock, the other a flow. So, yes, different tax rates are about right, justified, certainly.

In an analysis of the period from 2011 to 2018, Murphy said income had been taxed on average at 29.4% while wealth – generated mostly from rising house prices and the increased value of personal pensions – had been taxed at 3.4%.

I never know with Larry Elliott. At times I think he actually writes down what Murphy says, without correcting for the obvious errors, just so that people can see how ridiculous the claims are.

“This has massive implications for the forthcoming debate on who, if anyone, should pay for the coronavirus crisis. What is clear is that the only fair answer will be that those on the highest incomes, and those with wealth, are the only people who could afford to pick up that bill. If anything, everyone else needs a tax cut just to help them survive. Any politician with any concern for tax justice will have to understand this.”

A Richard Murphy

But tax doesn’t pay for government spending. Or is this Thursday, so it does?