I was on the BBC News Channel this morning critiquing what I knew at the time of the Green's manifesto.
I admit the one thing we did not get to was green issues, but I wanted to steer the whole conversation away from the idea that to be green is to be strange, and so I went for it....
This is the transcript (near enough). I indicate when speakers change:
BBC: Let's cross live now and speak to Richard Murphy, who's professor of accounting practice at Sheffield University Management School and an expert on tax, amongst many other things. Uh, Sir, Sir Richard, thank you. Not Sir Richard. I've knighted you as well. You're the second person I've knighted in a week.
You're Professor Richard. There we go. Professor Richard, let me ask you first of all, you know, you've had a look, I guess, at what the Greens have been talking about. What do you make of their plans on, on tax and also where they're getting their money from ultimately?
RM: Well, the Greens are doing something which is really bold, and we've just heard one of the people in Newcastle say he didn't believe that any of the parties are willing to do something different.
And the one thing you can say about this Green manifesto is that it is very definitely different. They are talking about taxing wealth, and they're talking about increasing tax significantly by increasing wealth. taxes on the wealthy and on those with high earnings and it's a combination of both.
They're looking, I think, for £50 billion extra a year.
I question wealth taxes. I don't happen to think they work very well. I've written a report about that.
BBC: Why not? Why do they not work well?
RM: Well, the problem with the wealth tax is that first of all you've got to find the wealth, second you've got to value it. And that is an incredibly difficult thing to do in the case of things like works of art, private companies. How much is a racehorse worth? It could be anything from 50 quid to 50 million or more. So these things are very subjective and very hard to value and therefore very hard to tax and will take a lot of time.
Much easier to increase the value. the tax rates on capital gains, to increase inheritance tax, to increase the rates of tax on, for example, income at very high levels, or to reduce the allowances and reliefs that the wealthy get. You could raise more money at a lot less hassle. So I slightly question that part of their manifesto.
But the drive is right, I think, because, as I've shown in my research, over the last decade or so, tax rates on wealth are tiny. Tax rates on earnings have risen to a level that we all now know is very high. And therefore they're the one party and to my surprise it is willing to say let's do something different, and they're doing it for good reason, I'd suggest, as well.
They are really hearing the zeitgeist. I heard John Curtis this morning talking I think on the BBC, saying the people of this country want to have more discussion of what the government's going to do for them. They want less discussion, in fact, of tax. They're not worried about tax, they're worried about education, housing, public services, health, of course, social care, and so on.
And the Greens are willing to do that.
Again, they've broken the mould.
Whether they're doing it in the way that everybody will like is not the question. Somebody has at least put their head above the parapet and said, “We're different. We're going to talk about it.”
So for that, they're a welcome breath of fresh air in this election.
BBC: Okay. Interesting. Really interesting to talk to you, Professor Murphy. Thank you very much indeed.
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:
It almost sounds as if they couldn’t get rid of you quick! Was it because of something you said? (Something sensible and workable, for instance?)
Sorry! there should have been ‘enough’ after quick.
That is as long as you get….
Well said. More time needed for you. I expect some media will follow you up.
Curious she sounded deflated at the end; they act, they lie, they must be on point.
Thank you and well said, Sir Richard.
As a horse racing fan, I chuckled at Richard’s reference. Richard is correct. Racehorses and works of art are increasingly used for money laundering purposes. With regard to art, have a look at what was paid for Hunter Biden’s works and by whom and wonder what for.
It would be helpful to illustrate the debate, e.g. comparing the distribution of tax burden between the 1960s and now. The burden has shifted from the wealthy and business to individuals. Some years ago, it was shown how Amazon’s UK tax bill was less than the rent paid by Debenham’s for its Oxford Street flag ship store and the taxes paid by Timpson’s and Marks & Spencer. There is UK business support for a rebalancing.
If I can get the data, I will share.
Thanks
That must exist
Try the House of Commons Library
Well done, at least she did not interupt & the point on tax stuff that is easy to value was well made.
Doubltess LINO will shrug.
Doubtless you are right
“Lino Shrugged” would be a good title for a novel.
🙂
Well, you do deserve to be Sir, though probably not good for the old credibility these days. 🙂
I would not accept it
Well, when I travel by car through the Chunnel – the operator greets me as “Lord Parr” since they give you a choice of titles & you know “Lord” has a good feel to it.
I recommend that we all do it. Disappointed they don’t have Duke (or Earl). Politico in Brussels used to offer the same option when registering for conferecnes – name tag: “Lord Parr” tell you – it got some attention.
🙂
I always choose Mr unless it’s very specifically work
Hi Richard
Today, Tax commentator Dan Neidle on X , is saying the Green Party Manifesto tax measures are difficult to anyalyse because of the lack of detail.
?
I am sure that will be true
He should read the Taxing Wealth Report 2024 thugh
“So for that, they’re a welcome breath of fresh air in this election.” And Breeeathe
Seriously it was well worth watching. Well done.
Thanks
Well done Sir Richard.
I think they cut you short as you were coming across as both knowledgeable and authoritative.
The last think the BBC Big Knobs want, is for you to undermine the “finding the money” narrative.
That was all the time I expected
Excellent interview Sir Richard!
You managed to pack a hell of a lot of information into a very short timespan. Kudos.
You’d be great on one of the channels’ election night coverage.
Thanks
Excellent summary.
The issue of tax is something I saw echoed in the scottish leaders debate on the BBC last night. Most of the parties don’t want to touch the idea of increasing tax, and the scottish greens were the only ones that made a point of it. People applauded the idea of wealth tax, so though it may be difficult to implement, there is support for this. An audience member even said they’d be willing to pay more tax, if it was used well. Why do none of the big parties want to acknowledge that people want to pay tax, they just want it be used well and for the wealthiest to pay their part too?
I wish I could answer that
Dear Richard
I thought your contribution was excellent. I know you have questions about the Greens’ macroeconomics, but on the basic issues of who the government should work for and that governmentrs can do big things for the bulk of the population, there is much in common.
Best wishes
Larry Sanders
Thanks, Larry. Appreciated, and I hope you are well.
George Monbiot very good piece echoing much of what you said.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/12/green-party-manifesto-labour-wealth-tax-
The list of what Starmer has dumped already is mind boggling – Lords reform, Right to Roam, National Care Service, Right to protest, workers rights, investimg in NHS etc
He calls this ‘Labour’s anticipatory betrayal’ …to avoid conflict with billionaire-owned media, the financial, property and fossil fuel sectors, by giving them what they want before they ask.
The URL you posted should read:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/12/green-party-manifesto-labour-wealth-tax-public-services-keir-starmer
After much agonising I gave up my Labour Party Membership and joined the Green Party a couple of years ago. I do not agree with all of the policy positions however they are the closest fit to my views and are genuinely progressive.I will be pleased to deliver leaflets in my constituency where there is strong support but not enough to win a marginal seat. The earlier analysis showed how flawed our democracy is. 8% of the vote converts into two seats.
Your comments hit the spot from my perspective Richard.
Thanks
One of the weird intricacies of our political system. Voters want change but keep voting the same way.
If Parliament allocates a budget to a department and they draw it down, then that is now ‘100% borrowed’. Let’s say that’s the health service and they are trying to hire nurses, but there aren’t any. So the budget remains unspent. That ‘new money’ can’t cause inflation. (edited)
[06:03]
Now let’s say another department is able to hire one person at the price they want to pay, which means 20% of that spend is recovered in tax (say). But that person is a hoarder and saves all they receive. We now have one extra transaction, and a whole bunch of saving which shows up as ‘government borrowing’. Yet the private sector has only been denied the output of one individual with no downstream transactions. (edited)
[06:05]
Run that on to the next hop, and the individual hired spends what they receive but the next person down the chain is the hoarder. We’ve now recovered 36% of the original spend in tax, but redirected two transactions. The rest is ‘government borrowing’.
[06:06]
And so on down the chain. As the money is respent further, and therefore more tax is raised, more transactions are induced. And its the transactions induced that are potentially inflationary if they can’t be matched by increased production.
he MMT Laffer Curve. How much ‘voluntary taxation’ (ie saving, ie ‘government borrowing’) happens in the downstream transaction chain from the injection point.
The Greens will probably get my vote but their language has been intensely irritating over the last week when discussing taxing the rich. ‘We need to ask the rich to chip in a bit more.’ Hardly fighting talk.