As such it contravenes section 1b of the TJN / AABA Code of Conduct for Taxation which says:
So Richard Murphy uses a document written by Richard Murphy as a reference to tell us that Setanta have been very naughty boys.
Nothing like having impartial sources, eh?
2 responses so far ↓
1 Richard Murphy // Dec 31, 2007 at 2:47 pm
But subject to peer review
Unlike your stuff
Of which no doubt we will see more in 2008
Tim adds: Peer review Richard? This?
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Documents/TaxCodeofConductShort.pdf
Can you let us know which journal this appeared in? What their review policies are? Whether articles published in said academic journal are in fact subject to peer review?
Or by peer review do you mean just review by your peers, something rather different?
As to my drawing on the research of others. This paper:
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~mast1732/RePEc/pdf/WP0707.pdf
No, I can’t see that it was subject to peer review in the scientific sense, simply a paper presented at a conference. But it does present empirical evidence of the impact of corporation tax, which was the basis of my article here.
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/tax-and-economy/why-we-should-abolish-corporation-tax-20071102422/
The point being that you, Richard Murphy, rejected the whole idea of tax incidence thusly:
“Yes he knows what is claimed
And he knows it is wrong
It is myth that works on the blackborad and not in practice
In truth it’s promulgated simply to make the wealthiest wealthier
But I guess that is your aim”
Please do explain to us all why we should accept your word that it is wrong, as against the considered opinion (with evidence) of three Oxford University academics.
2 MikinAppalachia // Dec 31, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Murphy has a peer?
Leave a Comment