I admit to being only an occasional blogger on Saturday morning. Even the most passionate of bloggers must take some time off. This morning, however, I am in my way to Montreal and the combination of an early start, the wait at Heathrow and, maybe, the odd moment of in flight inspiration (because I can be pretty sure I won't be watching a film) might lead to some 'thought for the day'.
Why to Montreal? Fundamentally to take part in a debate on Tuesday at the TaxCOOP conference at McGill University on the need for corporate taxation. My opponent is long time adversary Dan Mitchell of the amusingly entitled Center for Freedom and Prosperity, to which the words 'for the Already Wealthy' should properly be appended.
As interesting though will be the seminar I am taking part in with McGill tax law students on Monday. My theme is 'Theory to practice: from the secrecy space to the Fair Tax Mark' but I note the students (being budding tax lawyers) have largely shown interest in the revenue generating end of the spectrum and as such the Fair Tax Mark looks to be their focus of interest from initial comments received.
This whole process may disrupt blogging.
I am back early Wednesday and then on Friday go to Ireland for the weekend of festivities at Kilkenomics, and that I am very much looking forward to.
It's going to be a busy week.
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!
Hope you’ve had a safe journey.
Just one question (you must be pretty busy):
If Taxes destroy money (as MMT put it) is that assertion purely theoretical, in which case, is it mere convention (derived from history) that we call Taxes ‘revenue’ for the Government or is there solid accounting and transfers to back up the use of the term.
This links with my previous quoting of Duncan Smith (not noted for veracity) when he said that those on benefits get tax ‘transferred’ to them. Which you confirmed was neither true in theory or practice.
This is not revenue per se, except it’s a credit in accounting, and so looks like it
I just received this from Oxfam. I don’t know how effective these campaigns are, but it’s another way of trying to get the message across.
Tell George Osborne: Tackle big businesses’ tax avoidance
https://act.oxfam.org/great-britain/george-osborne-big-business-tax
I applaud the work Oxfam, Christian Aid and others do in this area
It’s powerful and appropriate
And is focussed, appropriately, on relieving poverty
Tax avoidance is an exercise in transferring the wealth that should be used for all to the benefit of the few
Have a safe trip Richard. I hope you will have opportunities to communicate via the media while you are in Canada. Is the conference being covered by any Canadian TV shows?
Not that I am aware of
I left that to McGill University – my hosts