Tim Worstall made it a new year’s resolution this year to seek to annoy me. It’s pretty sad that anyone could make it a goal in life to seek to annoy someone he’s never met. It’s also pretty indicative of his petty, pedantic and rather nasty right wing politics. He has in the process inspired those who have, it seems, been trying to find dirt on me this year — and now he thinks he’s found some. Not that he had to search hard — it’s in my Observer archive and has been on public record for a long time as a result. But since, no doubt, the matter will now revolve around the right wing blogosphere let me address it head on, for what it’s worth. His blog says:
Fascinating stuff from Richard Murphy
Our intrepid campaigner against tax avoidance: you know, working the tax laws to your own benefit?
Lovely series of articles in which Ritchie seems to be advocating:
- Turn your nanny into a personal services company and save £2, 530 a year.
- Use the stakeholder pension to save up to 20% of income that you won’t have to pay in national insurance.
- Reduce your tax bill by claiming all of your allowances.
- We should change the law so we don’t worry about fiddles under £1,000.
- Save 10% of your income by incorporating.
It’s all very different from what he says now, isn’t it?
And as I said on this blog:
Crikey it took you a long time to find them, didn’t it Tim?
The first was written because I could think of no better way of killing a scheme then being promoted on the professional lecture circuit than to give it publicity. I didn’t have blogs etc in those days. It worked. I call that a success.
The second fell into the same category — it did not work.
The third is about tax compliance. I stand by it.
The fourth is about tax simplification. I stand by it.
The fifth follows the logic of 1 and 2 — and was the way I thought I could seeking to highlight an abuse to draw attention to it.
Would I use that method now? No! I don’t need to. Was it the best I could do at the time? Yes, I thought so.
Do I apologise for using the Observer in that way? No!
But keep whistling if you want to find dirt Tim — because you won’t
Not least because a) years before you’ll find articles from me arguing against incorporation b) I never used a nanny scheme and never sold one c) I never advised clients to buy pensions for the reasons noted
So all you’ve discovered is methods have changed over time.
And some maybe weren’t terribly transparent
Big deal
Now tackle the real issues — like the abuse I was seeking to stop then, and now.
To add a little more colour. I well remember Tim Good of PTP — a colourful tax lecturer if ever there was one — telling of the nanny scheme on a course I went on in autumn 2000. I was shocked by it. I was equally as shocked that the story had attached to it the advice (and obviously I can’t recall the exact wording) that one shouldn’t shout about it too loudly or the scheme would be closed down. This was, of course, well before the days of the Tax Avoidance Disclosure scheme and such things. It was also well before the days of the Tax Justice Network and the change in awareness of tax avoidance in the UK. I also did not have my own blog and so on available to me at the time. So I decided to use an outlet I had available to me to achieve the objective Tim did not want — to attract publicity to a scheme that needed closing down and which I hoped would be if enough sought to use it. It worked! The scheme was shut — in 2003, I think.
I was annoyed too by the change in pension law that allowed absurd amounts of relief — and still does.
As for the company one — I well remember doing all the calculations on this for a client at about this time — as I still felt duty bound to do so. He refused take any action and stayed self employed, calling incorporation a scam. In many cases it was — with only the accountant winning (as I hint at in the article), and in general I’ve always been troubled about how many people are inappropriately advised to put their businesses into companies — something I’d written about several times before since the early 90s (if I recall correctly — it was in Accountancy Age at the time, I think). So the article fits again into the ‘drawing attention to it’ and then saying in this case ‘don’t do it’ in most cases, which was the best method I thought I had available to me at the time. And I bet you you’d be hard pushed to find anyone else at the time saying the list of people who should not incorporate was longer than those who should.
Did continuing to highlight the incorporation abuse work? Yes, I think it did. The Revenue tried the Arctic Systems case to end it — and I wrote about the aftermath of that proposing alternatives where I thought substance and form could be made to coincide in 2007.
Of course you can say quite validly that my methods changed radically in the period in between early 2003 ad 2007. They did! the Tax Justice Network had started; the environment of campaigning on this issue had changed radically, the internet had let direct campaigning happen in a way it could not before; I was blogging in 2007 and not in 2003, and on and on. So most certainly my methods changed radically. But I can assure you my motives did not.
In other words, you’re wasting your time Tim.
And it’s also amusing to note that on the same day Tim wrote I am being criticised for risking losing my credibility by Mark Lee — formerly chair of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales tax faculty — because he says I’m too direct with HMRC at the risk of now being mischievous in suggesting it has gone soft on tax avoidance. I’ll accept the suggestion I was being mischievous in my use of the Observer in earlier times. The direct approach simply was not, in my judgement, available to me then. But mischievous now? No, sorry: I don’t need that now. The cold reality of HMRC telling its staff to be commercial in the application of the law at a time when it is to be ruthless in its attack on benefit fraud is not an issue where I need be anything but direct: HMRC have got this wrong. Badly wrong. And if you think otherwise Mark then I’m sorry, on this occasion it is you who is being naive, not me.
It seems I can’t win with the far right or the tax profession today.
You could call that a sign of success.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Take it as a compliment.
You are hitting the spot every time, no wonder Tory central office bunker is sending out its greed trolls like Tim Wooster; it was Wooster wasn’t it?
You are doing a fine job. Oh they do get so upset! Marvellous.
Sorry, I don’t know how you can square your desire to close down the nanny scheme with this phrase from the article:
“This may be the time to set your nanny up in her own private limited company.”
There is absolutely nothing in the article which is discouraging the use of the nanny scheme, warning of the dangers, or in any way suggesting it is immoral or wrong.
So I’m afraid I don’t buy this idea that you were seeking publicity for it to get it closed down – the facts suggest otherwise. On the contrary, any reasonable, disinterested person would assume you were promoting it.
@Lewis Peattie
and
@slow food
Thanks Slow Food
Lewis – do you think if I was not entirely confident of my position I’d relate it?
Remember this was not a Comment is Free article – it was an article, paid for, in the Money section. If it had not met their objectives it would not have been published
So of course it could not be obviously anti if I was seeking to fulfil my parallel objective
But I’ve made my position clear – voluntarily and openly
And let’s be candid – the right wing blogosphere are not inclined to believe a word I say anyway. So what’s the odds if they don’t this time? That’s business as normal – except, as usual, I’ve been open, honest and candid. That’s unusual in the UK – but it’s also my standard position – and it works, which is why I adopt it.
Out of curiosity, has the nanny scheme now been closed?
I’m not a member of the “right wing” blogosphere but, frankly, I don’t believe you. Especially as you conclude the article by saying “now is the best time to do it” (or words to that effecr).
@Jason
Yes
2003 I think, but may have been 2002
@Lewis Peattie
Clearly you don’t need to and it is your right not to
But go back a decade
Campaigning against tax abuse was virtually unknown (and Prem Sikka had been bumped off Accountancy Age for doing it)
I had no idea something like the TJN would emerge
NGOs had no interest in this issue – and I’d tried
But one thing did work – if a problem was big enough there was action on it. I’d learnt that from my brother when he was highway engineer – when enough people had died or were injured there was action at a black spot. It seemed to be the same in tax – when HMRC found out about a scheme (then a slow process – which is why DOTAS came in in 2004) and it seemed to threaten revenue then action occurred.
I accept this may not have been my best plan. That’s a valid criticism. But it worked. The scheme was stopped. Publicity may have helped that. And in the context of the time that may be called a success. A decade later you can also say you don’t believe me. I can live with that. All I’ve sought to do is put the record straight.
Of course I’d actually been flogging the scheme to all and sundry you could say I was a hypocrite. But the reality was I did not flog the scheme to anyone, ever. Because I did not believe in it.
And I suspect that’s all that needs to be said.
As always with the loony Right, everything comes down to attacking individuals. Rather than addressing the huge effect tax avoidance and offshore banking has on the global economy or our societies, they prefer to obsess over something that an individual wrote something several years ago; which might (if presented in a certain way, out of context), slightly damage that person’s credibility.
Just the fact that these nutters spend their time harrassing you like this, shows what a great job you’re doing Richard. Keep up the good work.
@rjm
rjm: the way you have worded your comment, it sounds like Richard must be correct *because* he is being harrased. This cannot be true. he is correct or he is not: being harrassed doesn’t change that.
The charge against Richard seems pretty clear: he is currently campagning hard that people and firms should respect the intention and spirit of tax law as well as the letter of the law. Fair enough. But is now appears that this is a fairly recent change of position for Richard, because in 2001 he said (and I quote):
“Now, however, there is an alternative and legal way of making the payment – and saving money. This may be the time to set your nanny up in her own private limited company… But the scheme is legal and cost-effective at a time when there will be a clampdown on ‘cash in hand’ nannies. It has to be worth considering.”
I’m sure it’s legal, but it is EXACTLY the kind of thing he is now campaigning against as contributing to the tax gap.
It does sound to me like he has some reconcilling to do. Why was it acceptable for him at the time, but not for you now?
I took a look at Tim’s website once. It seemed a bit sad for him to be so obsessed with you as an individual. He even commented on how you were back from your holidays. We are almost moving into stalking territory here!
@Gary
And I’ve done that reconciliation – in full – which you seem to have not noticed
So unless somebody really has anything else useful to add there is nothing more to say
@Gary
As I re-read, I think I can parse three reconcilling ideas from Richard above:
1: ‘I needed the money’ or as RM puts it “it was an article, paid for, in the Money section. If it had not met their objectives it would not have been published. So of course it could not be obviously anti if I was seeking to fulfil my parallel objective.”
2: ‘I didn’t inhale’ or, “Of course I’d actually been flogging the scheme to all and sundry you could say I was a hypocrite. But the reality was I did not flog the scheme to anyone, ever. Because I did not believe in it.”
3 ‘It was a cunning double bluff’ or, “I accept this may not have been my best plan. That’s a valid criticism. But it worked. The scheme was stopped. Publicity may have helped that. And in the context of the time that may be called a success.”
I wonder which one it really is?
@Gary
I’ve no doubt (a) was true – I certainly banked the cheque, I’m sure
And (b)
And (c) too
In other words – I’m telling it as it is
Even Tim Worstall gave me credit for doing so recently
It’s what I seek to do
Gary – it really is quite simple. Richard has already answered his critics but this makes little difference to me, because I’m really disinterested in trying to turn issues of global political significance into a referendum on whether one individual.
Politics should be about issues, not these pathetic childish smear campaigns.
By the logic of the Right, it would be valid for us anti-Tories to spend all day posting online the expenses claims of the Cabinet, or contrasting positions they took when in opposition. Why should anyone take anything the Chancellor says seriously, because he flipped his house and overclaimed? Why should we take any Tory seriously on prisons policy, law and order or Europe, when they called in opposition for different policies than are now pursued?
We don’t do that, however, because we’re not a bunch of teenagers or paid employees of a political party.
The most extraordinary thing about this whole non-story is that despite the fact that Tim Worstall has been running a character assassination campaign on Richard since January 2009 (at least), it seems to have taken him more than 18 months to type “Richard Murphy” “Guardian” into a search engine. Some campaign!
Tim is the Left’s best friend in many ways BECAUSE he is so completely ineffectual.
@Richard Murphy
Richard I accept that – you can probably see from the time stamps that we were typing at the same time as I was re-reading the posts.
The reasons all seem to be of the ‘pragmatic’ variety (needed the cash/didn’t inhale/cunning double bluff). I gues its one of these ‘the end justifies the means’ arguements. As I said to rjm, Gandhi said “You must be the change you wish to see in the world”. Perhaps I’m too idealistic.
“As always with the loony Right, everything comes down to attacking individuals. Rather than addressing the huge effect tax avoidance and offshore banking has on the global economy or our societies, they prefer to obsess over something that an individual wrote something several years ago; which might (if presented in a certain way, out of context), slightly damage that person’s credibility.
Just the fact that these nutters spend their time harrassing you like this, shows what a great job you’re doing Richard. Keep up the good work.”
Hear hear. Most of the right’s opinions don’t stand up too well to rigorous, researched scrutiny, so they resort to tackling the man rather than the ball. Look at the way they approach the issue of global warming, for example. And also a lot of them seem to have the “winning isn’t everything, its the only thing” approach to issues, so they’ll never admit they’re wrong, but seek to attack those who don’t share their views.