I think it's time to talk about something that's happening quite a lot at present. Messages are being sent to me through various messengers from the great and good in tax saying "if only you were more reasonable Richard you'd be so much more acceptable." They even go so far as to say I'd be more successful. The message is always subtle but is that I'm upsetting people and they really don't like it.
I'm not surprised that the message is being sent. Tax justice is on the national agenda now, in a way that the great and good of the tax world don't like. That's why we get absurd articles of the sort published in the Church Times earlier this week.
They could live with us when the Tax Justice Network and I were talking about tax havens. That was, after all "over there" and they could pretend they'd got nothing to do with that rather nasty evasion stuff. But now the issues are tax avoidance, transfer pricing and accountability and this very definitely affects the great and good. The result is that they're going through what Schopenhauer described as the three phases an emerging truth. In the first stage, it is ridiculed. In the second stage, it is violently opposed. And in the third stage it is accepted as self-evident. I'd actually add a fourth stage: first of all it's ignored.
We've been through being ignored and ridicule. Both have failed. And now we're moving towards violent opposition - not physical of course, bit highly stressed reaction none the less. And what characterises this reaction is fear on the part of those suffering the reaction. Right now I don't think they know what is creating that fear. So let me offer an explanation.
As the Tax Justice Network entry in the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust Triennial Report says:
The Tax Justice Network is an ex- pert-led group that aims to defend democracy and tackle poverty and inequality by challenging tax abuse and offshore tax havens.
We are addressing what may be the greatest faultline in the global economy. We are creating a new, coherent narrative to explain how the offshore system has channelled wealth and economic and political power upwards, at the expense of ordinary people across the world. We are interested not only in tax — but also in other escape routes that tax havens provide: lax financial regulation and criminal laws; secrecy, and more.
The economist J.K. Galbraith said all successful revolutions involve kicking in a rotten door. We have identified the door and we're kicking — hard. We believe we have helped ignite a genuine revolution in modern economic thinking.
I think that's fair. But what it means is we're not tinkering at the edges of tax. We're saying the whole economic system is wrong. And the great and good of tax and accountancy do, of course, have a great deal invested in that current economic system.
The result is they say we're arrogant. Well, to some extent we are by their definition. You've got to have a certain degree of self confidence that can easily be misunderstood as arrogance to say most people - or at least most people in power - have got things wrong. And that's what we're doing.
And that's what the messages being sent to me are about too. They're saying "come back into the fold, join the cocktail party circuit, and things will be all right".
I've got news for those sending the messages. First, we're not rejoining the fold. Second, things aren't going to be all right for them. Third, I'm quite sure the change we're demanding is going to happen now - and that we will reach the point where it is self evident that it was going to happen all along. But of course the great and good are frightened as a result - their power and cash is under threat.
No wonder they want us to become nice compliant people. They want to stop us challenging their failed world view.
But most of all they're angry because they just don't get why people like John Christensen and I do this sort of thing. They don't realise that principles matter more to us than playing the games of the power elite - and that we really do this because we want to defend democracy from these people and we do believe that we will help relieve poverty by creating reform. And that belief in place of the self interest that is all they understand is what makes those sending the messages most baffled of all.
My suggestion to them? Engage with the issue and stop trying to shoot the messenger. Most of all - telling us we're arrogant really won't work - not when our arrogance is simply having the impertinence to be winning the argument. Argue back, or give up. But stop calling names now, please.
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:
Richard, they’ve said that to campaigners through the ages on issues like the slave trade, racial segregation, gay rights and even modern day secularists. It was always, be nice, don’t rock the boat, we agree with you but the time isn’t right, don’t upset those you might make common cause with etc. Utter nonsense from those with a vested interest in the status quo of course.
You crack on, you’re making terrific headway and you will eventually prevail because the best ideas always do in the end.
Thanks
Great piece, and I cannot offer enough support for what you have been consistently trying to do. All the best handling the ‘violent opposition’ although I suspect you’ll waltz through it.
This approach to our economy is key – KEY – to making this country’s economy more equitable. Next step the world economy Richard?
Given the nastiness of what you are combating, your work has always seemed to me remarkable for its moderation. Keep after them, keep going for it.
Richard,
Interesting article regarding behaviour. I agree with most of what you say and I believe that a fairer and more accountable tax system is one of the ways to get this country back on it’s feet. However, I think you are missing the point somewhat. Yes, you are arrogant. Maybe this is, as you say, self-confidence and I am prepared to accept this. However, you are just plain rude. I’ve been reading your blog, daily, for the last couple of years and sometimes the ‘spats’ you get into with people are more interesting that the blog itself, which takes away from what you are trying to say. As a tax ‘layman’, it seems that you either can’t engage with people properly, (and I’m not talking about the ‘trolls’), or you don’t want to. I find it sometimes difficult to believe your religious convictions when you are are so offensive to people who are trying to better understand your blogs are are asking pertinent questions. All that said, I will still come back and read your blog because I think you are on the right course.
Well I’m sorry if you think I’m rude.
If you doubt my religious conviction I’d suggest you note the man in whom I have faith was so good at upsetting people they crucified him for it. And he didn’t apologise. Although maybe he wasn’t rude. And on occasion I’ve had to apologise for being so.
But candidly, not often. Because most of those I am what you call rude to are here to time waste and provoke. I could of course delete them – but then I get flak fr that. I could ignore them – but won’t give them space without making clear they’re wrong. And exceptionally amongst blog writers with thousands of reads a day (5,000 is normal here) I have the decency to engage – which very few do.
And by doing so I get weary with some of those who come here, and it shows.
But I am human. And I do err. And I except it. But it’s a small price for effecting change.
And I note it hasn’t put you off.
Unfortunately it doesn’t put those I’d like to avoid off either
I’ve always put the abruptness which is a feature of some of your responses to comments (and can come across as ‘rude’ I suppose) down as a necessary product of having so many blogs to write and responses to deal with, Richard, plus, of course, the other work you do. As a regular reader I can usually tell that from your deliberately sharp remarks 🙂
Ivan
I average something like 5,000 words a day…
That may indeed have something to do with it
Best
Richard
Some of the “abruptness” referred to may be an unavoidable symptom of entertaining trolls in the first place. Less tolerent authorities would delete their comments without ado.
Krugman says the same thing and gives the same response: blogs May 5, 2011 ‘Madmen In Authority: An Update’, and April 10, 2011 ‘A Word From Those Who’.
I suppose the correct response is to say that it’s nothing personal and it cannot be personal as it’s a critique of the ‘centre ground’, an entirely impersonal concept.
As someone whose preference is for a low tax, broad based tax regime with an element of effective land value or property taxes it is a given that if you have large scale tax avoidance, plus extensive evastion and for that matter too many tax reliefs going to the wrong people (lobbyists rule OK) then you cannot have low taxes. Those who cannot escape them will all be paying higher taxes possibly much higher. As it is largely the richer and those who are outside the law who escape the tax net, this means that the lower income law abiding people carry the full weight of it all.
Richard,
Lots of people want to make the world a more just place. We depend on you and TJN for authoritative information on matters that are opaque (usually deliberately made opaque by those in power).
Fight on – with renewed vigour. And remember – we are many, they are few.
Very well said. I too sense the wind is beginning to blow in your – and our – direction, hence the upping of the opposition.
Keep up the good work – it’s beginning to bear fruit.
Tax is a political and social construct, we can, as a society, do anything we want to.
Keep ignoring those who say, “There is no alternative”, they are on the defensive now so like all cornered animals are most dangerous.
You are doing fantastic work and are a credit to your profession, which can’t be said for many.
Keep up the good work Richard, you are the antithesis of, and indeed the antidote to, your colleagues at the big4, ICAEW and MNC FDs.
If more accountants had the courage to speak out like you do we would see more progress towards a more transparent, fairer and simpler tax system.
In the famous Monty Python sketch, the Chartered accountant wanted to give up his profession and become a lion tamer.
You have managed to do both and in grappling with the vested interests of finance you have taken on a bigger adversary than a lion.
We appreciate your work and your giving up of the wide smooth road for the narrow and pot holed one.
Let me let you into a secret
This is more fun!
I’ve also never worked harder
Richard
I have big respect for you and your work, but I noticed in a tweet between yourself and Mark Littlewood, you were pretty dismissive. Arising from that, Mark and I have since had a long twitter debate, that has continued onto my blog. Uniquely for a free marketeer, he seems able to avoid ad homs, and I’m learning a lot from the debate.
@FrancesCoppola also said you were prickly. I suggested that you had been attacked a lot, and she agreed.
I’m not preaching at you. I have a big problem with being very prone to lose my rag when out there in space-time, but on-line I am able to ignore the ad homs, and can home in on the substantive arguments – maybe after years of practice on email list debates.
That is the key, I think – address the argument, ignore any negative foolishness coming from the other party – as we would wish them to ignore our own negative foolishness.
Today’s story about @Louise Mensch is an object lesson – all the ad homs against her just served to divert attention from the crimes of Murdoch and his empire.
And if any of this seems annoying – I’m sorry, it is meant to help all of us.
Is your patronising tone annoying? Yes, it is.
You may like engaging with the likes of Mark Littlewood – waste your time if you will. I won’t. Mark is a pernicious influence from the economic far right in the Uk that is opposed to the well being of the vast majority in this country and has compete contempt for them. That’s not dismissive. That’s objective assessment of the IEA and its contribution to public life.
As for Frances – I think she does have something to offer to debate. I blocked her at one time because I could not move at one time without her commenting. I felt suffocated by comment – and needed the rest of my life back. When I asked her to make the engagement reasonable she became abusive, joining with others in doing so on Twitter. The ad hominems all flowed that way. You will note she does comment here again now – and I have no problem with her doing so. The balance, I hope, has been restored. She may still be abusive on Twitter – I don’t know. I do not follow her. I make it a simple rule there to block those who seek to waste my time. If she isn’t any more I’m pleased, but I think you need to be careful about the evidence you accept from those who say I’ve blocked them or any such thing. There may be reason for my actions.
Pernicious influences should be ignored. Don’t waste energy on them.
Was I patronising? If you say so. I expressed respect, I disclaimed preaching, I owned up to my anger management problems, but still end up by being annoying. Maybe because of my tone, maybe because I am speaking truth to power – in this case – RJM being the power in this situation.
But I come back to the central point – getting annoyed does not help our cause, it hinders it.
In friendship,
Richard
Richard
I have to disagree – we have every right to be angry – and to show it when appropriate
Losing our rag does not help
But being annoyed – that’s absolutely acceptable
Best
Richard
Great work RM ,with some rubbish in between.Hope that is not too patronising.
My only concern for you is that I think that one day your religion and your political ideology
are going to clash fundamentally with each other. It did for me. I wonder which path you will then chose.
You clearly don’t get Quaker faith in that case.
The fundamental tenets are peace, equality, simplicity and truth.
They align my politics and faith.
‘Speaking truth to power’ is a Quaker phrase. The Urban Dictionary defines it this way:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=speak%20truth%20to%20power
A phrase coined by the Quakers during in the mid-1950s. It was a call for the United States to stand firm against fascism and other forms of totalitarianism; it is a phrase that seems to unnerve political right, with reason.
The founders of United States risked their lives in order to speak truth to power, that of King George. It was and is considered courageous, although is more commonly scorned today.
I acknowledge they offer an alternative.
Actually Quakers have used it since the 18C at least.
They have done so since the 1650s.
I hope in a small way I contribute to that tradition.
Keep up the good work, Richard, it’s needed.
Things are so bad in the tax world that my own blog has a category Them and Us which is used whenever I publish a story about the “two-tier” tax system.
Thanks Stuart
I appreciate the interest and support of someone like you still at the coalface
As someone who himself is prone to a certain scratchiness under pressure, I have great sympathy for the demands placed on you. Sure, I’ve wondered why, on occasion, you appear to pick a fight with an apparent ally but that’s only when I forget how difficult it can be to deal even with those closest to me.
I don’t always agree with every word you’ve written but I have the greatest admiration for your tenacity and the greatest respect for your integrity, as, clearly, do most of those who have commented here. If only we could identify politicians with those same attributes.
You don’t need me to say it but don’t stop!
PS I added FCA to my name only to demonstrate that accountants support you too. Perhaps other accountants should do the same thing.
Thanks Nick: appreciated
And you acknowledge a fact most don’t: doing this is not always designed to lower the blood pressure – especially when it id done on top of a full working day in most cases; again, something most don’t appreciate
As for other accountants – we need to get small business accountants out of the closet – tax abuse by large companies continually harms their clients