Saturday, March 01, 2008

Murphy's Law #7

Richard Murphy: turd sandwich.

As spotted by Timmy, everyone's favourite tax "expert" is at it again.
Good grief.
To do the latter denies the fact that tax paid is a distribution to society out of profit for the licence given to an enterprise to operate. It is not a cost.

Tax is not a cost? Barmy.

A licence to operate? We have to have a licence to trade? It is people like Richard "I am very pro-business" Murphy that allow the government to keep on spouting their hideous bullshit.

You listen to me, Murphy, you ignorant statist bastard, people have been trading freely since long before we ever had governments, or states. Trade is one of those natural things that happens because it benefits both parties otherwise they wouldn't do it. Why the fuck should anyone have to pay a licence to trade? And who is this licence paid to?

Tax is not an inherent good, OK? It is merely what we have to pay in order to support the ambitions and second homes of our bastard politicians.

Oh, and might I remind you, again, to sort out your vocabulary?
Tax efficiency is a euphemism for avoidance. As it says, that is avoiding the law.

No. It. Isn't. Tax avoidance, as I have had to remind you before, is entirely legal: it is, as the name suggests, avoiding tax, not the law. Tax evasion means avoiding or breaking the law and is, as such, illegal. You moron.

  1. Murphy's Law #1

  2. Murphy's Law #2

  3. Murphy's Law #3

  4. Murphy's Law #4

  5. Murphy's Law #5

  6. Murphy's Law #6

Richard Murphy: what a genius!


Kay Tie said...

Well, what do you expect for a TUC economist? Talk about oxymoron..

John A said...

"Richard Murphy: what a genius!"

I love you, Kitchen.

Jersey watcher said...

You are kind to Murphy, challenging only his economic understanding.

In autumn 2007, Senator Syvret of Jersey was fighting for his political life. He's the politician who decided to speak out about the reports of child abuse by States employees (n.b. this is not a parent-bashing fantasy like the Orkneys) and, as a result, was denounced.

In his distress at the time, Syvret managed to get in to a barney with Murphy - an arcane spat about whether or not Syvret had contact with a tax campaigning group, a 'yes-you-have, no-I-haven't, say that in court you bastard' sort of argument. Damned if I can work out who said what about whom and whether it remotely matters. The whole thing got overheated and the Jersey police were informed, giving them yet another thing to investigate.

Murphy was justifiably annoyed at being accused of something which was not the case, but he also couldn't see that Syvret was fighting a much bigger machine.

Let's face it; the people who kill children in cellars are not going to baulk at one gobby Senator. Anyone who has been to Jersey will tell you that there is a lot more geography in it than the footprint allows; it is a very good place to dispose of an enemy. If Syvret thought people were out to get him, he could be right.

Murphy claimed to have been a friend and respecter of Syvret for many years, and then waded in:

Stuart Syvret was for more than a decade a rare symbol of integrity in Jersey. That has ceased to be the case in 2007 during which year he has, sadly, seemed intent on destroying his own career by throwing wild allegations at almost anyone he believes it possible to malign. Yesterday he was sacked as a minister by the States of Jersey as a result of a vote of no confidence on his handling of another matter in which he also made wild allegations.

I too was a victim of his wild allegations.........and I might have reasonable grounds (which we will not purse) for saying he threatened to blackmail us: the worst I did in correspondence with him was suggest that he sought medical advice, something his own senior civil servants repeated on the front page of the Jersey Evening Post a couple of months ago.
(12 September 2007)

Murphy has been very quiet this last fortnight. Don't hold your breath for an apology for his kneeing Syvret in the goolies just at the point where he might have hoped for some support from a person who knew him for over a decade and could, conceiveably, have thought: 'Syvret is mouthy, but he isn't normally a nutter; maybe he has some reliable sources'.

For ref: I have contacts on Jersey who acted most peculiarly last year as the story began to break. They admitted immediately that Syvret was saying something which needed saying, but argued (at that time) that his approach was counter-productive. He was flamboyant, populist (true), and not sufficiently deferential. This view is not tennable today. My interpretation is that they had been hearing stories for years, but it was Syvret who turned up with something approaching evidence.