I thought a small note of thanks due to all those who suggested I should not be selling the book through Amazon.
You got the Courageous State some useful publicity in the Telegraph.
I appreciate that.
But where the heck did they find the picture? It was taken at the G20 in London in 2009.
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:
Undercover police officers/ private investigators, hacking your computer. take your pick
Amazon diversion is a “storm in a T-Cup” I fear as the economic news is now seriously bad; the FT today has pages and pages on the UK economic woes and Europe’s woes ; we have here a serious unrelenting economic crisis and both the FT and Mirror are correct to give coverage to struggling bewildered youngsters; meanwhile both the Rightwing Mail and Rightwing Express have banner headlines about foreigners taking many , many jobs from our people. Enough to remind one of the fascist 1930s ; no wonder Germany is trying to set some European focus at this really serious time. I do not think now Richard is exaggerating anymore.
Not to make light of serious comments above, but is the following true Richard?
“He has advised on how to avoid tax in the past (search the Guardian, the Observer as well)
2)…
3) Has paid out dividend to avoid N.I. contributions. Also oddly paying money to his wife, which has meant he has been accused of income splitting. No opinion frankly without the facts. ”
Of course point 3 is not a huge sin if the facts justify them but you should probably respond in the DT.
Re tax avoidance, see some of my comments here http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/maguire/2011/08/in-praise-of-richard-murphy.html
Re articles in the Observer, I did write for them – of course I did, and wrote about developments in tax. That is what the asked me to do. And as I have explained, many times, I did indeed write one article many have misinterpreted as promoting tax avoidance, and which I have explained I did to draw attention to a scheme I had heard of and which back then, pre blogging, I wanted to end. My assumption was publicity would kill the scheme – and I was right. So I think the ruse justified, but I readily admit I would not do it that way again – and nor would I need to either.
And as for dividends – yes the were paid. And as I have explained endlessly, first of all my wife has been a partner in some of my activities and secondly these have been genuinely entrepreneurial and in the period when paid were additional to our other professional activities on which all NIC was paid. In other words the form of the transaction justified the payment method at the time, but again I would not use it again – which was one reason for shifting to an LLp structure. So again I note this and those who obsess on the minutiae of my life and wonder what it is that excites you so much.
And the moral is? Undoubtedly I have changed or refined my opinions an methods over time. Wouldn’t it be rather surprising if after all I have done, thought about and written I had not?
i dont have a problem with your LLP structure. but your insistence that you sought to undermine the tax scheme by the way you wrote about it so publicly is ridiculous and undermines your credibility (you only have to read your article to see why).
why not just admit that your views have changed. this is fine. people change, our views change, we grow, we learn, we educate ourselves our opinion changes.
i dont think the same as i did 10 years ago – i dont expect you to. stop trying to justify your old writing in that way – it does you no credit and detracts from the good stuff you are producing now.
I have drawn attention to pastbwriting where my views have clearly changed – and deliberately so
I have as clearly explained motivation in that other case and that it worked
I have sought to be clear
I have also acknowledged that of course my thinking has changed
What lacks credibility in that?
it’s entirely up to you to decide but since I have yet to note you affording my current work much credibility I suggest you are far from seeking to offer an objective assessment
That is your right
You’re more than welcome Richard, we’ve all got to earn a crust.
RM – ive changed my name on here as there are 2 steve’s posting and i think you may have me confused with the other one
SteveT
I’ve seen this critiscism levelled at Richard & also at the chap who blogs as “Premier Shareholders Group”.
My experience FWIW is that many perfectly decent upstanding people get drawn into avoidance activity by the industry. They are often assured that they are not only doing nothing wrong but that “this scheme is approved by HMRC”.
This is of course a lie. HMRC doesn’t approve any avoidance schemes.
These people are often quite horrified & disgusted when they find what they’ve bought into.
My experience has been that the people promoting avoidance schemes are little if any more ethical than those that sell ‘off market’ medicines or encourage you to invest in a W African windfall deposit but the difference is that they are shysters that have the Govt’s ear – a Tory Govt especially !