There's a curious feature of this blog, which is that if I write about tax no one much bothers to read it. Or, at least, they don't in anything like the numbers that read anything I write about the NHS, modern monetary theory or Scotland.
It's MMT that's being read the most at present, and not just here. Much of what I am writing is also appearing on Brave New Europe.
And I notice I'm also appearing in the US on Naked Capitalism, which is a site I check most days.
I make the point for two reasons. Both sites are worth checking anyway for their material, which always tends to be good. And, secondly, the material I publish is available for republication by anyone if done on a not for profit basis. If it's for any other purpose, please just ask.
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:
Well yes, but tax is boring, Richard. 🙂
Well, yes, Andy, but – can’t remember who said it – tax is joyful, apparently.
But who understands tax? The government doesn’t, Parliament doesn’t, the media doesn’t, and cough I suspect too many accountants may not. Perhaps I ought to have a word with that bloke at the pub who knows everything.
Even Einstein had difficulty. According to his tax adviser, Leo Mattersdorf, he said: “The hardest thing to understand in the world is income tax.” 🙂
But Einstein did understand land value tax: “Men like Henry George are rare unfortunately. One cannot imagine a more beautiful combination of intellectual keenness, artistic form and fervent love of justice. Every line is written as if for our generation.” God, I’ve been waiting for the opportunity to post that!
Richard, Please keep up (or return to) your focus on tax. It’s why I read your blog and the pursuit of tax justice is important. Without your work, the issue would not be what it is today. I don’t always agree with what you say but it is always interesting, educating and thought provoking and I wholeheartedly defend your right to say it.
Tax is not going away, I promise you…
Richard,
Having thought a little more about making tax ‘sexy’ it occurred to me that one thing you have succeeded in doing, by hammering home the message that taxes don’t pay for government spending, is diminish the apparent importance of tax in doing what it does do.
Maybe it’s now time to focus on the six reasons for taxation as positive policy imperatives.
Having ventured into the realms of sexual intercourse and reproduction as an analogy for theory as opposed to practice, in the field of MMT ‘theorising’, perhaps there’d be some mileage in applying the same thinking to the ‘Joy of Tax’.
Accentuate the positives. It’ll make a change from Scotland and MMT. Anybody who isn’t up to speed there isn’t paying attention. (or they’re being tiresome)
Oddly, I am writing a talk for tomorrow where that is exactly what I am doing
Well there you go….
As Mae West used to say : “Come up and tax me sometime”
As Mae West used to say : “Come up and tax me sometime”
I don’t believe you! She used to say “Come up and look at my balance sheets sometime.”
You sure it wasn’t her cash flow?
Well, I love “The Courageous State”, and swear by ” The Joy of Tax”, so please just continue bringing it on in all spheres, tax included, Richard.
Thanks
Not for nothing did W C Fields say, in his imitable style,
“I’d rather be taxed in Philadelphia”
In the out takes of Gone With The Wind rescued from the cutting room floor….
“Frankly, my dear…I haven’t yet completed my finished my tax return.”
And who can forget Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca with the immortal line “Of all the tax offices in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine”. Or the recently discovered Shakespeare original, in his own handwriting, of Hamlet’s soliloquy on life, death and taxes: “To tax and spend or spend and tax, that is the question”.
Now that last is very good….
And the first is not bad
And of course everybody knows Bogart never uttered the line;
Tax it again, Sam.
This is an interesting point. The scope of content written about on this website seems to be considerably wider than just tax. I’ve tried to get people interested in politics interested in this website. However they are out off by the title of the website. Is it worth renaming the website to give it a name that more accurately reflects the content? I regret to say I don’t have a snappy, catchy name to propose instead.
Me neither
Murphenomics?
No!
If we take the initials of the subjects in the current tag line; tax, political, economy
This is the permutations available if retaining .org
pte.org – available
pet.org – not available
tpe.org – not available
tep.org – not available
ept.org – available
tpe.org – not available
Choose one & use that feed a website name?
I can’t see it working…..
As I said I can’t think of anything snappy & catchy. If someone else can come up with something then fab. If not, life goes on of course
My suggestion would be to keep it as simple as possible, avoiding anything too ‘clever’. Maybe just replace ‘Tax Research UK’ with ‘Richard Murphy’ – followed by ‘making sense of tax and the political economy’.
And how about offering a ‘Richard Murphy’ coffee mug for sale? Nothing wrong with a bit of branding merch. (Only kidding – or am I?).
I think that line of thought has already gone too far!
@ Richard Murphy
I’m hoping to become a foster carer to a disabled hedgehog so have a mug with a picture of a hedgehog on it I bought. Much as I think your blog is dead ace I categorically would NOT buy a mug with your face on it…. that’s taking interest and respect too far.
How about Tax Rediscovered? Because that’s kind of what your blog does: Encourages you to explore and discover all sorts of weird stuff about tax that never entered my head.
I must admit when I stumbled on your blog I almost didn’t bother reading it because the title was so dry and academic sounding; downright boring if I’m being truthful.
I’m glad I did give it a go though. A bit like one of those obscure documentaries you stumble across on Freeview – The History of Buttons or something – and think, “God, that sounds tedious,” but within two minutes of watching are hooked.
Regarding noticing that your threads dealing specifically with tax get less footfall, I wouldn’t get too disheartened by that if I were you.
Most people only want the general outline of MMS (See, I read other bits too sometimes) and its general affects, etc, and not necessarily its ins & outs in detail.
For instance, how many people who drive actually understand how the internal combustion engine works in detail. Or how many people understand the chemistry behind mixing together a load of flour, eggs, sugar and marg in a particular proportion at a specified temperature in order to produce an edible sponge cake?
Not many, but that doesn’t stop them being good drivers or good cooks. They’d be even better drivers and cooks with that understanding but life’s short. So they leave all that more esoteric stuff to the mechanics and chefs.
Likewise with all the specific tax stuff. I tend to skim or skip them as I’m the equivalent of a 5 year old learning to read. I can just about cope with ‘Jack & Jane’. Sticking with my analogy, I’m not even ready for Enid Blyton yet, let alone Shakespeare! And Denmark wanting country by country reporting or something is the equivalent of Shakespeare.
But just because me, and other metaphorical 5 year olds, want to play with the big boys & girls, doesn’t mean you should stop catering for the grown ups. How else do 5 year olds learn? We’ll get around to Shakespeare eventually.
Talking of which, how about, ” There are more taxes in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your tax haven.”
Or, to kind of paraphrase the indomitable Mae West: Is that a pocket calculator in your trousers or are you just pleased to see me?
I quite like tax rediscovered….
Glorious!!! 😆 😆 😆
Why ‘rebrand’ ?
‘Tax Research’ is a niche that needs exploration and explanation. The MMT, money tree mechanism without a complementary tax regime is not going to work for very long. The 2008 experiment is teetering in less than a decade because it’s only half a policy.
The Murphy brand ain’t broke it don’t needs fixed.
What needs fixed, as Mr Clinton observed, is ‘the Economy, stoopid’. That can’t be done, by popular consent, without an understanding of tax.
Steady as she goes, Mr Murphy.
Noted
I’m inclined to agree but I’ve always found tax sexy so not a good judge.
Why re-brand?
Because the scope of content on this blog is much wider than just tax.
Steve says:
“Why re-brand? Because the scope of content on this blog is much wider than just tax.”
Fair comment.
I agree it is: but I am not sure a rebrand will help as yet
I’m reading it. And I am “narrowcasting” it, to the best of my ability. 🙂 😉
Thanks
Well I can’t see the readership figures that you can but I do know that one reason that tax specifics don’t get the same level of response as other topics is that we don’t know enough about it to comment.
With some of the other topics, many of us were brought up in or educated into those discussions. Other media get involved in those topics as well. Tax and accountancy is a bit like law. It is one of those areas that gets relegated into the technical and professional realm with a lot of the mystical jargon and terminology that comes with that process.
If anything its the jargon and terminology (the professional culture) that make a lot of people feel that its “boring”
It is good that you try to bring the subject to a wider readership but to some extent you will always find that some people feel excluded.
One more thing – where your regular readers are concerned the tax posts are less controversial. Generally your pursuit of tax justice (eliminating tax havens, more progressive tax, corporate tax fairness etc.) is accepted without argument. As such it is less likely to attract responses especially so where the detail is such that readers don’t feel that they know enough to comment.
Interesting
Of course, tax justice used to be where the argument was
I look forward to the day when MMT will be accepted
I will be arguing other things by then, of course
Indeed, I am working on ideas now…..
Hi Richard
Change the title if you will, but do not change the domain name of your site. It would have a serious negative effect on your search engine rankings.
I would not do that!
Is that not a matter of speculation? Additional traffic attracted to the site by a more alluring name would increase SEO ranking.