I found this in a slide presentation by Malcolm Gammie QC, one of the directors of the Institute for Fiscal Studies Mirrlees review, when talking about his work in that capacity:
What are relevant criteria for identifying taxable capacity? - earnings, expenditure, age, hair, status, education, gender, height, assets, disability, responsibilities?
My guess is he thinks that funny.
Many of us might think it a pretty sick sense of humour, especially given the discrimination all too readily apparent in the work the review has commissioned. Notice he forgot to mention wealth. Why? Was he trying to tell us something?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
[…] An interesting question really: […]
Richard, Gammie is clearly basing his slide on (albeit with humorous extension re hair) a table from near the end of Kay’s commentary on Mirrlees chapter 6 Base for Direct Taxation
http://www.ifs.org.uk/mirrleesreview/commentaries/kay.pdf.
A reading of this commentary demonstrates there is a serious and discussion to be had about tax base – why not engage with the (rather intractable) issues with considered argument and help find a solution ……?
David
I have made serious comment: where is wealth?
I am seeking to find solutions: I publish them often. I am questioning whether the IFS is really contributing to this debate when it is suggesting the withdrawal of taxation from companies, wealth and interest.
In the circumstances the joke really did seem very weak to me. To not be unsubtle the IFS choice actually seems to be capital or labour and opts for labour every time. The joke has all the characteristic of a diversionary tactic that draws attention away from that to me.
Richard
[…] mentioned yesterday that the IFS did not appear to think that wealth was a basis for charging tax. Now I know why. This is what the they say in their report on Taxation of Wealth and Wealth […]
Mr Murphy
The ninth item on Gammie’s list is “assets”. In my mind, this is the same as wealth. Are you trying to draw a subtle distinction here, or were you just reading too quickly?
Regards
Graeme
Graeme
Assets are particular
Wealth is a total
I do see a difference, and a very real one
Richard
[…] mentioned yesterday that the IFS did not appear to think that wealth was a basis for charging tax. Now I know why. This is what the they say in their report on Taxation of Wealth and Wealth […]