Most days someone makes a donation on this blog by hitting the 'buy me a coffee' button. I am genuinely grateful: this blog costs money as well as a lot of time to run.
I also do, I admit, consume more than my fair share of coffee. Most afternoons right now you can find me in the garden of the Poets House Hotel in Ely (they say there is no apostrophe) with a coffee, a computer, an iPad and a phone to hand:
This tends to be where the serious writing of the day gets done. Right now that means work on a new report on wealth taxes - and their capacity to provide the additional tax revenues that our economy needs. To be published in stages, I hope to explore all aspects of this issue and to provide a menu of options with which to challenge any politician who says 'there is no money left', because there most certainly is.
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:
Looks idyllic – and you Sir are an inspirational character.
For a few pence more than Costa and Nero it provides me with a place to work whilst watching the world, hearing conversations and having them.
Tax doesn’t bring revenue it is immediately cancelled. I am confused?
Tax revenue is required to control inflation, not pay for services.
But it is still revenue.
And yet we’ll hear the old chestnut ’tax and spend’ when it’s the other way around spend then tax!
Interesting, and if we can run low inflation with much lower taxes then we should cut them? Will that not lead to a Liss Truss style panic in the bond market? I don’t think I understand this still very well.
I admit I am not following any of your logic.
Richard Murphy,
I do find your blog very instructive; it has increased my understanding of the nation’s finances, but there does seem, sometimes, to be some mixed messages. You often say “There is NO taxpayer’s money” and “taxation does not pay for state services” etc..
This morning we get “a new report on wealth taxes – and their capacity to provide the additional tax revenues that our economy needs”.
Should that not say something to the effect ” and their capacity to allow more governmental spending” ?
Tax revenue = spend (or loan) cancellation.
Maybe the OED definition of “Revenue” is wrong too.
Fair comment – or nitpicking?
I accept the point – but the reality is that if we spend more we do at some point need more taxes – because that is necessary to cancel inflation. Not nitpicking, but an obvious issue arsing from the difficult items around this,
Wot, no cake?