There is NO such thing as Taxpayers' Money
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 มิ.ย. 2024
- Do you ever hear the phrase, "Stop spending taxpayers money?", well Richard explains why there is no such thing
Richard Murphy is a chartered accountant. After training with what is now KPMG he established his a firm of accountants in London, of which he was subsequently senior partner, in parallel with a career as an entrepreneur and company director which lasted until his early 40s. He then moved to a career in campaigning and academia. He co-founded the Tax Justice Network in 2003, the Green New Deal in 2008, the Fair Tax Mark in 2013 and the Corporate Accountability Network in 2019. From 2015 to 2020 he was Professor of Practice in International Political Economy at City, University of London and is now Visiting Professor of Accounting at Sheffield University Management School. His best known book is ‘The Joy of Tax’.
Follow Richard on his Twitter: RichardJMurphy or on his blog: www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/
Recorded at Spotted in Studios
/ spottedinstudios
Subscribe and get notified of new videos release every weekday at 6am.
INTRODUCTION: • Welcome to my channel ...
PLAYLISTS:
Accountancy: • Accounting
Economics: • Economics
Tax: • Tax
Green New Deal: • Green New Deal
Money: • Money
Questions from subscribers: • Questions
Miscellaneous: • Miscellaneous
#richardmurphy #richardjmurphy #economy #economics #accountancy #accounting #tax #uktax #ukeconomy #greennewdeal
Richard J Murphy, Economy, Economics, Accountancy, Accounting, Tax, UK Tax, UK Economy, Green New Deal
Well if it's not "tax payer's money" then give it back. If all government has to do is print it, they don't need ours.
Exactly!! This guy is delusional
You just can't get your head around it can you?
That’s it, I’ve got to stop watching these. I have become one of those people who shout at the TV news.
Taxpayers' money is a valid phrase and concept as long as it means the money taxpayers have left after they've paid their taxes
Not really. It's not your money. It's an IOU.
It's not a contract it's you pay the government or be prosecuted and fined even more,
Is there a video about Pensions by Richard?
Can you clarify whether it is the case that the government uses collected tax money, as primarily a means to control inflation, rather than as a primary basis to fund public spending.
Is this entirely true? I'm having difficulty in establishing that receipts of notional digital money by one government department, somehow directly translates to public spending by another.
In the accounting equation there is always two sides. Debit and Credit. Give and take. Who does taxation give to and and take from exactly? How does capital respond to taxation? How do consumers respond to taxation? If marginal rates of taxes are frozen on say a pack of cigarettes, how does that impact the purchasing power of the money used to produce them, and the purchasing power of consumers? In the US, the value of USD is increasing, so its purchasing power relative to other currencies is high, but supply driven inflation is increasing prices - exogenous inflation, whilst marginal rates of taxes stay the same. On say a pack of cigarettes, the cost of growing tobacco increases because there is a shortage of the fertilisers used to grow it and the cost of energy used to cure it is up too. So producers pass those input costs onto consumers. But the government hasn't raised taxes. Taxation is like a canal lock, it diverts money back to the government to redistribute elsewhere. But it doesn't impact what the remaining flow of money can buy. Governments could choose to cut taxes, thereby increasing the amount of money flowing in the economy, but that would have zero effect on its purchasing power. If they raised taxes, there would be more money flowing to the government, but its purchasing power would be the same, even though the nominal price of goods would go up. That is endogenous inflation. So, you have to specify what sort of inflation you are referring to, as not all inflation is the same. So, taxation doesn't influence supply-driven inflation, coming from increased input costs, per se. Yes, tariffs on imports will increase prices, therefore increasing nominal inflation. But in the current Cost of Living Crisis, tariffs cannot be used to reduce inflation. However, tarrifs do have a role in addressing deflation in the prices of local producers in the context of foreign competitors dumping imports at prices to undercut local producers. Imposing tariffs on imports can level the playing field, but then consumers pay for that. So context is everything.
Quite !
I often link people to your twitter threads, and now I've found you have youtube videos, great!
However, I think in both cases you need some snazzy graphics to help sell this to people. e.g. A little graphic of a flaming bucket with tax payments going in, and a separate magical cloud of magical QE government money coming out of the Bank of England.
When you give money to a shop voluntarily you are happy to consider the money "theirs" after the transaction because it was handed over voluntary to them. If the shop forced money out of you as you walked past, under pain of imprisonment, you would call it theft and consider the money still yours and returnable. Hence the government taking money from you, without you having signed a contract with them and under pain of imprisonment is not the same as voluntarily paying a shop for goods or services. The reason people don't object to being forced to pay taxes on the whole is because the Government assures us it will spend the money it forces from us, wisely and in our best interest. And this is the reason it is called Tax Payers Money .. because the government notionally keeps it in trust for us to spend on our behalf. Its a way of emphasising that the government should appreciate the sacrifice taxpayers make in giving up the money without a fight. So while technically you are correct it is easy to see why morally it is called tax payers money still.
Wrong. A transaction is a singular event. Shopkeepers are obliged to forfill their end of the contract AND NOTHING MORE. Everyone on earth knows they have to pay taxes to A government somewhere: be it the federal government far away. or the local village chief and in return everyone has expected to recieve something in return, even if that something is just to be left alive untill the next payment is due.
This is not extortion: this is civilisation. To a significant proportion of the population, things only have value if you have to pay for them. In return, we get the government utilities that make urban life possible: such as laws upholding private property rights and recognising buisnesses as legitimate legal entities, and police, and emergancy workers, and roads and schools and universities and libraries and all the other stuff most people would never think of until they desperatly need it, like consumer protection laws.
@@wiretamer5710 you mean to tell me that the thousands , I alone, pay in a fiscal year is rationed out to what I only will need out of desperation? In case of emergencies?
@@wiretamer5710 I think that you missed Graham's point, which, as I understand it, was that we have a right to describe the money as ours (collectively,) given the circumstances.
This is a social contract into which we are born, not an immediate exchange of money for goods or services.
It's not yours. You didn't create it. The government did, and by dint of its power, forced us to use it. Contracts can be implied as well as written, and ethics can be implied or expressed as well. But when you want a loaf of bread from the shop, all such arguments are neither here or there. That's the reality tunnel we are in. What is who we are, because our priorities shape our problems, and if we don't like our problems, perhaps then we should look at our priorities.
5 41 AM 29 SEP 2022
👏👏👏
One sometimes wonders why they bother to tax at all... 😏 by
Almost all taxations go to the bank of England and the Vatican, and not on services, also there is not one single statute in effect that states you have to pay any taxations, this is the same in America where congress even admitted 4 times in one session that taxations were by the voluntary consent of the people. We do not have a Debt to governments, they owe us hundreds of thousands in criminal theft, which if you look at increases in taxations almost always goes on wars created by them....the consent required to pay taxes does not even exist until you complete and sign the tax return, then and only then are you in a legal contract with the inland revenue........" Paye" was introduced in 1943, during yet another war, and had no statute passed in parliament, no record exists of taxations being in law, and that is because we are all governed using Admiralty/Maritime laws of the high seas, and every part of any policy has to have the peoples consent.
Not really.
frigging in the rigging...
EXACTLY.
This is very fallacious. You're arguing against a technicality. Whether they made it or not they're spending the fruit of your labor. If you're taxed at 30% for the 22 days you've worked for example (so excluding weekends), then the government would have taxed 7 days, or 1 week, out of the 3 weeks that you would have worked. It doesn't matter if they made it. Fact is they're appropriating a fraction of your time and effort so saying they're spending taxpayer's money is still accurate. If we go back to times where there was little to no government when people still used commodity money, if someone took away that money they still took away the fruit of your labor. And even besides that point, if you made something but used it to pay me in exchange for my labor, then that thing is mine now regardless of who made it.
I think you missed the first point. Government still only spends what it first creates. Even if, arbitrarily, government imposes on itself an accounting convention whereby it balances spending against tax, it isn't 'spending tax'.
@@paulmaguire3454 Yep and the accounting convention is only there so it makes sense to buisness people.
To your last point, make something to pay for something else; Yes, that’s why VAT was “invented”, right? The real challenge of today is that corporations can “make something“ without VAT due when sold/exchanged. Capital flow and financial assets are in essence tax free at that level (stocks, bonds, property etc.). So, the tools to avoid inflation are only used for “money in the pocket”, not “money in the bank”, since large holdings can borrow freely, creating negative capital. A zero balance will not create tax, and international transactions are VAT free. Private citizens can of course not do this, or they “can” by incorporating their own assets. They do (if they can) at an increasing rate, it’s totally legal. 🥸👍
This is a bit of an annoying semantic argument.
Disagree.
People, please THINK before you believe this video as a complete truth, because unfortunately it is a half-truth. A convenient (for socialists) half truth. It is technically correct but, there is obfuscation of the full reality here.
Broad money is Actually created by BANKS not the government; people and business borrowing the money are the prime mover. The banks create the money by double entry book keeping. The money you borrow is your liability (a debt), and the bank has the corresponding asset on its balance sheet: a sum of money that will be repaid with interest. The bank may borrow a corresponding sum from the BoE and get arbitrage on the interest rate paid, OR it may not. Whether it does so or not is to do with the reserve ratio.
Here is why it is CORRECT to think of government spending as TAXPAYERS money:
Its debt to the BoE and to all of the other bond holders can ONLY BE REPAID IN TAXES.
Every time the Govt spends, it MUST repay by taxing the population, or roll over the debt to a later date.
Therefore, the only money the government has IS TAX PAYERS money.
If the government could pay its debt by printing money, it would not need to collect taxes.
Ever known a government say 'no more tax, keep all of your wages'? No the reason is bloody obvious, it is not possible - the govt MUST collect taxes in order to spend. Your money.
Not true. The money is created by BANKS under order of the government.
In an economy where the banks are privately owned, this is correct. In an economy where they are not? Absolutely wrong. In essance, this entire video is an annoying semanticly based one.