That's the tactic of the left. Get in early with your message and blast it around everywhere. Your followers pick it up and regurgitate it. Leaving the other side to have to pick away at all the messages spread around to refute them. It's just about impossible to wipe out the initial message. Especially when the originators of the initial message keep repeating it, even though it might have been proved wrong. That's why urban myths are so persuasive. Vodaphone is now an urban myth.

So a flat tax takes 400 pages to describe. The current tax system takes 40,000 pages to describe. Which one is more complex?

As for "re-engineering relationships in society". Is that gooble-de-gook for saying that tax are used to change society. Just like "sin" and "envy" taxes. "Envy" taxes being the stuff that Ritchie spouts out all the time.

Err, gay marriage is already possible. Only it's called a civil partnership. In the eyes of the law civil partners have the same rights as married couples. Only from a religous aspect are the two types of union seen as different.

"Taxing the rich, to make investment " is any oxymoron. You don't tax the rich so that they can invest their spare cash where they want.

So some might invest their money in new houses with huge fish tanks or they might fritter it away in nightclubs or they might put their money into up and coming internet startups and rake in a few billion after a few years.

But taxing it means that you have the government deciding what to do with the money and governments have been shown time and time again to be the worst entity to spend money.

Don't diss Nissan Micra drivers. They are good cars and usually have good drivers in them too. ;-)

To use his words and twist them round a bit. "This is uninformed diatribe from the left."

To show the quality of the left, Matt Wardman has exposed Eoin Clarke (PhD) to be stupid dishonest and ignorant over at AnnaRaccoon's. Richard Murphy is part of the same group, including Polly Toynbee, George Monboit, Sunny Hundal, etc.
http://www.annaraccoon.com/politics/dr-eoin-clark...

And it being *Accounting*Web you would tend to assume that the commentators are accountants and can add and subtract and understand the concepts of "worth" or value. Maybe their 10yr old son could do better. ;-p

Tim Worstall explains the 56 houses. They are the true council houses and not the social/affordable houses of which there are many thousands. Tim is not so polite to use the word disingenuous.
http://timworstall.com/2012/04/19/lies-damned-lie...

Being a "fake charity" is nothing to do with the Charity Commission or the trustee or directors. That's why I put it in quotes. It's a rule of thumb to indicate if a charity is really a charity doing good things or one taking money from the government whilst at the same time lobbying for law changes in its favour. So a hypothetical children's charity that campaigned for more controls of children's supervisors whilst getting money from the government to improve the environment around children would be one.

And I was wrong, its more than 10% of income and/or £1m but it includes the lobbying point.

See more at http://fakecharities.org/

The only reason they say they don't like rich people's pet projects is because they aren't *their* pet projects. Ones which *they* think are more important.