New comments policy from 17 February 2014

  1. I can do whatever I want to your comment when you post it here.
  2. I can edit your comment in whatever way I like.
  3. If I can’t figure out how to edit a comment to my satisfaction I will delete it.
  4. If you do not comment on this blog, I reserve the right to use your personal details to insert a comment from you that says anything that I might think you could possibly say.
  5. In these terms and conditions “your comment” includes comments made in accordance with points 1, 2 and 4.
  6. Despite the fact that I have complete control over what is published under your name on this blog, you retain all liability for your comment.
  7. This is all actually legally binding stuff. I’m not winging it and hoping that it looks like I know what I’m talking about. I’m a legal expert you know.
  8. By providing your comment on this blog you jointly and severally accept all legal liability for comments by all other contributors including Murphy Richards.
  9. I am not legally liable for anything that is published on this site.
  10. Changes to these terms and conditions will be published on the noticeboard in my den and you agree that all amendments apply even if you are not aware of them.
  11. All terms and conditions, and subsequent amendment, apply retrospectively from the moment of my birth.

The old comments policy

Comments are welcome on this blog. However, they are moderated with good reason: far too many received are not suitable for publication: due to bad grammar or neoliberal overtones

For a comment to be published I must be satisfied that:

1. It is legal. Remember, being legal is not the same thing as not being illegal, so I am looking for something that is both not illegal and not alegal.

2. It is deferential to me.

3. It includes an argument that validates the readers’ opinions. Bear in mind that I am the first person to read the comment.

4. It appears factually accurate. Unless it concerns me, in which case it just needs to be flattering.

5. The commentator is genuine in their agreement with me.

6. It is not questioning the fundamental tenets on which this blog is based.

This last point is important. Those who wish to argue that I am wrong may do so, but not here. Likewise those promoting neoliberal sophistry may do so, but not here: propagating the delusion that an economy can be accurately modeled using counterfactual propositions about its nature is not something I wish to partake in, and will not allow. In fact an economy works the way that I say it does. Therefore neoliberalism will not be tolerated in any form.

The following are highly likely to be rejected:

1. Comments that abuse me by suggesting I am wrong or less knowledgeable than the commentator

2. Rants which have anything other than neoliberalism, tax avoidance or things I don’t like as their target

3. Repetitive commenting from the same person. By “repetitive commenting” I mean disagreement.

4. Comments that duplicate a theme adequately covered by others. That means covered by others on other blogs anywhere else on the internet. This can be avoided by starting all comments: “I completely agree Murphy, you are the number one political economist ever”. You don’t see that on other blogs.

5. Persistent comments from those promoting libertarian ideals far removed from the political mainstream. Libertarians are always wrong

I would stress: agreement with me is not a condition of a comment being accepted, but disagreement must be reasoned and be offered within the framework of understanding that this blog seeks to promote. That is, it must begin with the axiom that the post is correct and the comment merely seeks clarification.

This policy is necessary to make the comments section on each blog useful, meaningful and enjoyable for readers.

For those who disagree or think this an act of censorship I have one suggestion to make: please go and start a blog of your own.

Free speech is valuable. But not here.

I support it. But not here.

It is what permits you to offer your opinion as readily as I offer mine. But not here.

Nothing requires that I must offer your opinion on my site. To say so is an act of editorial freedom – an issue as important as that of free speech. Translation: you are here to listen to me speak truth to power, but I will use my power to deny you the truth of speech.


7 thoughts on “Comments

  1. Pingback: Taxing corporations in a global economy: is a new approach needed? Yes, says the President of Reseaches for Taxes UK | The Justice for Taxes Network

  2. Pingback: Taxing corporations in a global economy: is a new approach needed? Yes, says the President of Researches for Taxes UK | The Justice for Taxes Network

  3. Pingback: Now the BBC has been corporately captured!!!! | The Justice for Taxes Network

  4. Pingback: If you want to comment on this blog read my comments policy first or I’ll scweam! | The Justice for Taxes Network

  5. Pingback: Comments – yet again you force me to delete your idiotic drivel | The Justice for Taxes Network

  6. Murphy

    It is incredible how alike we think. It goes without saying, of course, that you are considerably more intelligent than me and other mere mortals, but nevertheless I consider myself to be on your wavelength, to the extent that this does not offend you (and so begging your pardon in advance).

    I have been cogitating at length on some of your genius ideas (GRAPIST, etc) and would like to contribute, most humbly, a couple of suggestions for further consideration to contribute to the very even, and well researched, debate that you have undertaken on behalf of Civil Society.

    It seems to me that there is a compelling case for a multiplier to be applied to multinational tax bills to reflect how appallingly multinationals have behaved in abusing tax. This should be determined on a group by group basis, but essentially the tax bill for an organisation such as, for example, HSBC should be = 30% * turnover * multiplier, which multiplier for an organisation like HSBC would be set at 1.8 to reflect an objectively determined uplift to the tax bill (as already determined using your GRAPIST, etc). We could usefully call this the Murphy multiplier?

    On top of this, we should develop a “Fairness factor”, again determined objectively and reflecting how much, in all fairness, we believe that companies should pay. So a company’s tax bill would become = tax due (with no relief for anything, such as costs) * Murphy multiplier * fairness factor (subject to a maximum in any one year of the company’s overall asset value).

    I make these suggestions with the greatest respect and humility, and I remain your loyal servant for any further work required in this area.


    George (a fellow accountant)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s