Vir Cantium

I'm right, you know …

Monthly Archives: April 2012

7 Ways In Which Polly is Wrong

She’s at it again, giving the Grauniad all £110,000-worth of her wisdom. This time, it’s …

The tax and finances of every citizen must be open to public scrutiny

…Taxes are the price we pay for civilisation: soon that price must become a public declaration for all.

So, let us count the ways in which Polly is wrong. This might take a while…

1. The idea that confidentiality of tax affairs is somehow a ‘cheat’s charter’ is akin to the authoritarian’s ‘nothing to hide, nothing to fear’ argument – with all the corresponding ‘guilty until proven innocent’ and legal crystal ball gazing that it involves. Do we have to keep the bedroom curtains open when indulging in you-know-what, just so that everyone can see it’s consensual?

2. Exposing everyone’s tax affairs is a good thing because, quoth Polly:

Transparency underpins a culture of social justice and civic duty.

Rubbish – it underpins a culture of envy and spite and stirs up (often unjustified) antagonism, fuelled by financial and economic ignorance which is, of course, what socialism feeds off. It reinforces the sneering culture that would rather vandalise an expensive car than aspire to own it.

The ‘civic duty’ bit is code for embarrassing – or, more accurately, bullying – people into paying more than the law requires. Well, I am happy to make a prediction: that the number of Toynbee cheerleaders who publish their own tax affairs (in full) will be around the same number as those UKUncut followers who voluntarily sent extra dosh to HMRC.

Read more of this post

Advertisements

Competition Is Bad And Must Be Stopped, Says @RichardJMurphy

This ‘competition’ thing really must stop. We need a level playing field. It cannot be right that car maker A who produces, say, a better quality vehicle for the same price as car maker B, can then take so many of B’s customers. Or that maker C produces a less well-appointed car than maker D, charges a lot less for it, and again takes so much more market share.

What about, instead of buying a car from our choice of dozens of manufacturers, we simply acquire a car from any one of them and then the price we pay is ‘fairly’ apportioned between all the makers – regardless of who you actually ‘bought’ the car from?

Of course, the method of calculating this apportionment ‘would be a huge task’.

Yet we could then apply the same logic to, say, the supply of and payment for state-run services. Maybe something like this intellectual colossus of the economic firmamentsuggests:

… we can recalculate what Amazon should pay here in the UK using the unitary apportionment formula method of taxation …. We split the profit in accordance with a formula.

…we need radical corporation tax reform in the Uk and worldwide. IUnitary apportionment formula taxation stops tax haven abuse of countries like the UK.”

Multinational siting HQ in low tax country shocker!

By ‘tax haven abuse’ Murphy means, of course, tax competition, and naturally the EU leans towards the view that while competition in the private sector is a Good Thing (and it is), when it comes to themselves tax competition between countries is a Very Bad Thing. We must create and maintain the cartellevel playing field and all that.

Ritchie does have it right, briefly, here though:

… we need radical corporation tax reform in the Uk …

We do – we need to abolish it.

P.S. Christie, as ever, has also had a swipe.

Internet Surveillance: Yes, It’s Another Round of Big Government Bingo!

OK, so far, I’ve got:

  • “combating terrorism”
  • “need to take action”
  • “serious crime”
  • “potential for saving lives”

I’ve also picked up the ‘ratchet effect’ bonus point for:

  • “There is nothing new about this….updating existing regulations.”

And for triple points the perennial:

  • “paedophile”

Of course, it’s another broken manifesto promise and another desperate attempt to pander to a perceived Daily Mail constituency (the last six years of courting the Guardian having gone so well). Today it’s the proposals to force ISPs to install equipment to monitor everyone’s internet traffic (to conform, it appears, to EU desires). It’s OK, though, they won’t be storing the contents of your emails (yet) and they will need a court order to undertake the interceptions (for now).

Indeed almost every sentence that is spoken or written in defence of the plans can be suffixed with the words ‘yet’ or ‘for now’ without negating what has been said.

I suppose we should congratulate the Home Office for so effectively house-training the Home Secretary and her team.

However, judging by the comment ratings over at the Mail, this isn’t going down too well even there.

So let us, just for the record, run through the usual rebuttals, as they cannot be repeated too often.

“If you’ve done nothing wrong, you’ve nothing to fear.” If I’ve done nothing wrong, why should I have to prove it? Innocent until proven guilty and all that? It’s one thing to be questioned by a police officer if I was at the scene of a crime, or close to a suspect, but to have my everyday movements monitored on the assumption, or just in case I am a criminal? Oh, and don’t patronise me by comforting me that court orders will be required before all this happens; how many such orders ever get refused?

“If you’ve nothing to hide…” another variation on the above. You may not think you’ve anything to hide today, but we live under a law that criminalises free – albeit very distasteful – speech and is open about introducing retrospective legislation.

“It’s for the children.” Yes, they have actually mentioned paedophiles in all this, because they’re on every street corner, you know, and no-one has ever been picked up and prosecuted after surfing or downloading such material. That famous episode of Brass Eye episode wasn’t satire, it was a prediction.

It’s all OK, though, because there will be some vague form of independent oversight, and it’s not going to be a central database (yet). So that’s alright then, we can trust the government’s word on that can’t we?