According to the Telegraph, in 2012 John McDonnell:
advocated placing left-wing economists in key jobs at the Bank of England and HMRC.
He said: "On economic policy in terms of the Bank of England you install people like Graham Turner [...] you must make him the Governor of the Bank of England.
"You then move on in terms of taxation - you put Richard Murphy and John Christensen at the head of HMRC to introduce Financial Transaction Tax, the wealth tax, the land value tax - all done in the first 100 days."
I strongly suspect he did say such a thing; not that he consulted me on whether I agreed with the suggestions he'd made, which I did not.
No one took any notice then. And I think that the chance he'd appoint me now would be remote in the extreme, even if he had the chance.
I wouldn't believe all you read in the papers.
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!
Just out of interest, if he DID, what would your program be in the first 100 days?
Read chapter 9 of The Joy of Tax
That’s my Chancellor’s speech
I think we can make so much more change without having to resort to the politics and / or economics of government / opposition.
One only has to understand the business model of networks to realise that a platform cooperative is being readied to manage a large, consolidated and mission-led population of disenchanted ex-voters.
McDonnell is dead in the water as a Shadow Chancellor.
Unless he has had some sort of epiphany – which I doubt most sincerely.
But all McDonnell has to do is read what you have already said and then put your ideas to work. Why would he appoint you?
Aren’t politicians meant to be the doers – feeding off ideas like yours and others?
Weird.
I’d certainly want you there in an advisory capacity.
Following on from above, and having just finished Joy of Tax, if he did approach you with a sensible offer and a position you would enjoy doing, would you be interested?
JoT was a great read for me, Thanks
I never say never
If the commitments were right, who knows?
Thank goodness because we’d really ostracise you if you did, I know, I know. But even as a daydream it’s a rather pleasing idea. First 100 days, bish, bash, bosh, I imagine the feeling it gives me is akin to what a non league football fan might feel seeing their team win the FA cup.
🙂
One can only imagine the panicked dicky fit that the right-wing media would have if such events were to occur!
Ah, well. It’s a nice thought at the very least.
You could replace Income Tax with an effective property tax and beef up National Insurance and extend it as much as possible. It would make things a lot simpler. Oh, and Customs could stop the imports of filthy German cars.
Funnily enough the options are myriad, the only certain thing is that if you were designing, with a totally fresh start, you’d never design what we have ended up with. But I like our ideas around tax alterations/simplifications, not quite to my taste. But I always feel these systems should be designed with flexibility in mind to allow progress and experimentation.
If it really is progressive over regressive then I’d give anything a shot.
Oooh, the simplified taxes game…
How about a £10,000 national income for everyone over 16, and a flat tax in the region of 60-70% on earned income?
You know that’s not progressive
Stop wasting time here
The only flat thing more discredited than a flat tax is the flat Earth hypothesis…but there’s not much in it.
A flat tax system with a tax feee allowance meets the definition of a progressive tax system as the average rate of tax incurred increases, as income increases.
Of course that is unlikely to be as progressive as you desire, but to deny it is a progressive system is nonsense.
There is no guarantee its progressive : if capital gains rates are oower or CT provides shelter then your logic does not follow
Jim, it’s a game of selective stats, if you have a flat tax the more you earn the more you pay in absolute terms. Throw in a tax free allowance and yes you can claim it is technically progressive. If I can admit this then you must be able to admit that in this area the flip side is always ignored by those that support such things. They always want to keep the discussion on the what is paid side and ignore the what is left.
It is about greed, entitlement and the perversion of the scientific theory of evolution to apply it to economics. People cannot and do not evolve on these timescales, but minds can be warped and souls crushed. Lecturing and hectoring those that subsist, the majority, on the fairness and rightness of the structures that keep them there. Is there any wonder that mental illness has become a growing concern?
Flat tax enthusiasts appear to have no idea about marginal utility
The theory has its limitations
And is also broadly right