Quite a lot of people seemed to like my contribution to the Today programme on Radio 4 this morning discussing information exchange on beneficial ownership data. Even some long standing opponents said so on Twitter.
You can listen here: start at 2 hours ten minutes in.
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!
Yes, I heard your comments on the radio this morning. But I feel a far more important subject than tax havens, and tax evasion, and tax avoidance is the development of a new paradigm which infact could actually lead to the phasing out of taxation altogether. Here, I refer to Transfinancial Economics which has now begun an entrance into academia. See the following link http://theeconomicrealms.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/international-monetary-system.html
I am sorry: I will not be a believer
Just listened. What an opening intervention. Mind you, the other interviewee did rather leave the door open – and closed her contribution by repeating it 🙂
I agree: it may not always be so easy
But I have now learned to make all the points as early as possible and give not a hint of stopping until they are delivered
And that worked well, Richard (as many politicians have been taught).
By the way, I note from the new Private Eye that the new British Steel (ie. the company that rises from the ashes of the Scunthorpe steelworks) will be owned by a holding company based in Jersey.
Which really does make a mockery of the name
Just listened to it. Brilliant! What’s not to understand unless, of course, you don’t want to understand. It’s going to be a long, arduous struggle to achieve your clearly articulated objectives but at least the process appears to be moving in the right direction. Baby steps à la Kaizen Way. Some time ago I gave up listening to the self-important Humphreys but maybe I should retune in from time to time. I hope you are invited back on a regular basis to comment on such topics.
I have always got on OK with John Humphreys
Thanks
‘Good turn’, to evoke memory of Wheeltappers & Shunters.
Mustn’t get a rush of blood, but there is a sense of pivotal moment. Tax insight opening a door to economic insight and the social connection and demand for change.
Excellent contribution — your method of getting in your points as early as possible did seem to work today. You even got them to change the headlines at 9am from the 7 and 8am versions = something that rarely seems to happen.
As an aside, elsewhere on the programme, I heard Nick Robinson (in an interview with the chair of the Public Accounts Committee) repeat a version of the ‘if it’s so easy, why has no one done it already?’ question.
He didn’t put his ‘killer question’ quite as smugly as Andrew Neil has done in the past, but it was close and didn’t really get answered.
I think we all know the answer — cynical self-interest, academic and regulatory capture, an indifferent, ill-informed and/or openly biased media etc.
Personally I’d love to hear someone just laugh and say “It’s the Establishment, stupid.”
Next time….
You illuminate where they do not wish you to illuminate. As they say, don’t let anyone dull your sparkle.
It’s dull right now: the Today programme and I were in discussion at midnight last night
But thanks
Just listened to from a warm bedroom in Southern Oregon! Richard, you came across very well if you don’t mind the compliment. Not a growl, not even a whimper from the six dogs, four of them on the bed, who were also listening.
I am on Channel 4 news tonight and Hector sat beside me whilst I recorded
Did I hear an external auditor saying that the right of a contracting entity to conceal its identity outweighs the disclosure obligations that underpin limited liabililty? Could this be a general assumption made by auditors when certifying accounts?
What does it mean to “hold assets offshore”. A PFI hospital (the debit) is palpably onshore, the ultimate financing credit is buried somewhere deep within a nominee account in the BVI. If the asset proves defective (say a school falls down) the redress costs are huge.
Rarely do we have auditors explaining the alchemy of the multi national double cross,
sorry, entry.
I listened to the podcast.
It is pity that there is no one in Parliament who seems able to similarly combat the half-truths and understatements provided by HMG on taxation. I long for someone to take Cameron/Osborne to task along the same lines.
LW: “Businesses need to remain competitive, so there may be irrational reasons why customers or suppliers may not want you to go into a particular market… if they believed you were competing with them on a different level, they may withdraw their business from you.”
I am interested in how Ms Wilson tries to defend the need for commercial secrecy (with regard to beneficial ownership) by appealing to the irrational behaviour of customers and suppliers. It is a well known fact that human beings do not behave rationally 100% of the time, may have conflicting interests and do not always do the right thing. It is generally agreed that such irrational behaviour is undesirable, but there is nothing we can do about it. It is a legitimate business concern, and some conclude that corporate secrecy is the best way to deal with it, hiding information so that customers and suppliers do not have the opportunity to act on it in an irrational way.
RM: “Well what you are doing is condoning commercial lying; commercial lying undermines trust, destroys faith in markets, misallocates resources and results in a culture of cheating. That can never be acceptable.”
In his excellent and succinct riposte, Prof Murphy focuses on the moral level and reveals a contradiction in Ms Wilson’s reasoning. The original problem was irrational behaviour by customers and suppliers. However corporate secrecy does not solve the problem, but merely transposes it so they are the ones doing wrong. People like Ms Wilson have to face a serious dilemma: in order to protect legitimate business interests, they must suggest that corporate secrecy is an acceptable price to pay. They have forgotten that the real basis of a market economy is faith and trust, and as soon as they try to ring-fence business against customers’ irrational behaviour that trust is gone.
In fact, working towards a culture of faith and trust rather than a culture of cheating would be the best and only way to protect legitimate business interests against human irrationality.
Thabk you
I do find it odd that as a supposed left-winger it is now my job to defened the role of markets
Actually I see no contradiction: I believe in a mixed economy
The Right pose as being pro-business, which carries a lot of political weight.
But they are capitalising on confusion.