The Guardian asks this question tonight:
Can Corbynomics guru Richard Murphy fix Britain?
And follows with:
The Joy of Tax author thinks we should clobber tax avoiders and pump money into social housing rather than the banks. Does this wonkish former accountant have the masterplan to reshape the country?
I think that might divide opinion.
There are links to buy The Joy of Tax from the Guardian if you read the article.
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!
A bit more insightful than last week’s Andrew Neil interview on the Beeb.
lots of comments about you not being taken seriously by tax experts.
I made the point that as your calculations are published, they could be refuted point by point -but they don’t.
Also that , if many of your ideas were implemented, a lot of people, accountants, tax experts and lawyers, would lose the chance to make large amounts of money.
I never read the comments on the Guardian
Nor, I gather, do Guardian journalists
“I never read the comments on the Guardian”
Well you will have missed mine than:
“Brilliant article, I think this trend will catch on, as other journalists come around to the idea, that Corbyn’s economic policy, especially regarding People’s QE, cannot be faulted, and is in fact the only game in town.
The establishment is backing the idea:
We have the Telegraph (Ambrose Evans-Prichards), the Standard (Anthony Hilton), Lord Adair Turner (his new book), and of course the main man of “free markets” himself, Milton Friedman all backing PQE, or similar alternatives, called “Overt Monetary Financing.” Friedman, btw, not only backed helicopter money, but he even advocated that governments should not borrow at all from the private sector. There should be no government debt in normal times. Just government spending.
Right wing loonies can rant and rave all they want here, but Corbyn (and of course Murphy, the author) cannot get more endorsement for their ideas than from that roll-call of the great and good mentioned here.”
Thanks
great article and very much looking forward to the book. wonkish seemed a bit harsh but given the output they might be right.
any preference for where to order the book? guessing not Amazon…
Waterstones?
“wonkish”? No justification, who the hell edited that comment!
I can live with wonkish
If it means enthusiasm for a subject it’s not untrue
Jeremy Corbin pinched the idea! What’s wrong with that? Isn’t that what education is? We just have to make sure that our teachers are peddling sensible ideas. Then we realise our TINA (not Tory TINA)is the only way.
Jeremy Corbin is STANDING ON THE SHOULDERS OF GIANTS, which is what all of us sensible people do.
Thank you, Richard.
The article suggests you still refuse to buy a coffee at Starbucks; is that true?
Habit formed for two reasons
Crap coffee
And I still do not trust their tax position
And is this distrust discussed in The Joy of Tax, available via Amazon?
Oh just save yourself the embarrassment, press Delete.
It will be on sale on Amazon
That is my publisher’s decision
Zoe Williams seems to state that you were the first person to calculate a tax gap and the Revenue responded.
Didn’t HMRC do a tax gap calc in 2005?
Yes
Sometimes things get garbled in the wash
And it is true that HMRC only really got into gear on this after 2008 TUC report
What is wrong with the Guardian – a supposedly Left-leaning paper?
Why do they call people with sane ideas ‘wonks’.
Refer to their writings as ‘polemic’?
Do they not want things to change?
It can only be a failure of imagination. Or some form of PLP tribalism.
We’ve analysed how modern capitalism has failed over and over again. What we need now are answers.
And now, when viable alternatives are put forward, they are instantly undermined.
It’s crazy.
If you have not yet already seen this you might well feel it worthwhile to look up the recent article posted on Counterpunch entitled “Red neo-liberals: how Corbyns victory unmasked the Guardian.”
I stopped reading both the paper and the web site during the summer after thirty six years as it does not do what it says on tin.
Tony Yates – reduced to saying that if you use QE once you will not be able to stop –
“what would there be to stop the political clamour for using QE to pay for something else?” .
This is as bad as Andrew Neill saying “why hasn’t everyone done it?”
Why is everyone ignoring the fact that it has been used, it has been done, it works; the due diligence must have been completed; we are simply talking about varying the application of the existing £375 billion fund?
Anyone who has a cocker spaniel can do no wrong in my eyes.
Hector (the cocker spaniel) agrees with you
I will never live up to his expectations
Excellent article Richard and great to see even more publicity of your moral crusade. Social sciences have become morally bankrupt in many ways and your blogs are a ray of hope in this institutionalised knowledge world where wisdom is a rare phrase indeed.
Have you looked at those charities that are disguised commercial companies?
I recently investigated a misconduct matter involving a ‘charity’ providing care services to local authorities and the NHS. In their Charity Commission financial summary they appeared to be representing all their commercial activities as charitable acts. So, they pitch to commissioning bodies to provide a service at a price, but appear to be representing the income as ‘donations’ and the service as a charitable act.
They then benefit from their tax position as a charity to undercut true commercial organisations (and in some cases conventional charities).
Is that common?
I am not aware it is common
Trading subsidiaries of charities are known though