Comments on: Wondrous! http://timworstall.com/2007/12/31/wondrous/ It is all obvious or trivial except... Sat, 11 Feb 2012 18:45:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: MikinAppalachia http://timworstall.com/2007/12/31/wondrous/comment-page-1/#comment-4826 MikinAppalachia Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:57:02 +0000 http://timworstall.com/2007/12/31/wondrous/#comment-4826 Murphy has a peer? Murphy has a peer?

]]> By: Richard Murphy http://timworstall.com/2007/12/31/wondrous/comment-page-1/#comment-4822 Richard Murphy Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:47:32 +0000 http://timworstall.com/2007/12/31/wondrous/#comment-4822 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. 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.

]]>