BlobbyKC

If you have a KC after your name that means you know things
Respected colleague of @NoncefortTax

[BlobbyKC @BlobbyKC]

What happens when you take all the policies Dan Neidle *does* support and put them into a plan?

They'd *cost* the UK £8b in the first 5 years before any benefits could arise.

https://t.co/aKYGWLm3Np

[BlobbyKC @BlobbyKC]

@ProfJWR And the person who made the £22m estimate is not even an expert on economics (he’s an expert on tax law and advising large corporations to minimise tax and get a cut of the proceeds).

[BlobbyKC @BlobbyKC]

@DaveWil05666003 @alexmassie @DanNeidle I flagged the specific two points he raised (SA IT hasn’t reduced, and income hasn’t necessarily reduced, it’s an inference he’s made with no control for various other factors). He’s blocked me on here tho.

[BlobbyKC @BlobbyKC]

@antonerable It’s Dan Neidle behind it. He was evidently a competent tax lawyer advising corporations on reducing tax but he’s not an economist, none of his work is peer-reviewed. But he gives centrist dads, rightwing rags and politicians a veneer of intellect cos he uses lots of hyperlinks.

[A.M.MacJ @ammacj]

Why has @thetimes @DSanderson_85 wrongly made a definitive headline on Scottish Tax?👇
The author, Dan Neidle says ‘may’👇
Expert Laurie Macfarlane urges caution👇

[BlobbyKC @BlobbyKC]

@ammacj @thetimes @DSanderson_85 Dan is equally irresponsible with his click bait headline “may have fallen over the Laffer Curve” and by putting out a figure (£22m) knowing there is no solid grounding for it. He’s a reckless millionaire tax lawyer parading as an economist and too many people fall for it.

[BlobbyKC @BlobbyKC]

@Airmilesfreak @IndyAndy1314 @AgentP22 Link doesn't work - who is it?

[BlobbyKC @BlobbyKC]

@Airmilesfreak @IndyAndy1314 @AgentP22 No I'm a Blobby

[BlobbyKC @BlobbyKC]

@Airmilesfreak @IndyAndy1314 @AgentP22 unjustifiable estimates that'd never pass a basic economic peer review, that take scant evidence to make politically explosive inference and interpretation

[BlobbyKC @BlobbyKC]

@Airmilesfreak @IndyAndy1314 @AgentP22 Can't see anything about being an economist or subjecting his views to peer-review? Maybe he should stick to physics and how to advise the wealthy and corporations to dodge tax?

[BlobbyKC @BlobbyKC]

@AgentP22 @Onzebill Exactly - the £22m is a half-assed estimate from a series of shaky inferences by a non-economist who doesn't subject his work to peer review.

THAT do it for you AGENT PEEPEE?

[BlobbyKC @BlobbyKC]

@NagleBall @DanNeidle Dan Neidle is a former tax lawyer. (He has some great analysis of tax law detail.) Now he's a campaigner/influencer/blogger in the vein of Gary's Economics. I think his footnotes suggest his economic credentials are that he runs his blogs by some economist mates?

[BlobbyKC @BlobbyKC]

@AMcKellar89 @Callum_TH the 'in fairness, he does state it's absolute horseshit in the article' is such a cop out. it's the worst thing about Dan as an influencer, not his saving grace.

[BlobbyKC @BlobbyKC]

@Stix_n_stones22 @AgentP22 @HumzaYousaf It's Dan Neidle's misinformation, the Times just amplified it, but he is very clever in caveating his horsecrap with lots of disclaimers so when people call him out he can say 'i always said it was just an unfounded, non-peer reviewed guestimate for lols on a blog :)'

[BlobbyKC @BlobbyKC]

@DanNeidle @alexmassie Saying 'ChatGPT', is not a response - any specific criticisms of my analysis of you and your blog?
Narrow professional expertise in tax law, presented as broad public authority over economics, government and policy delivery? I'll add that you feed cheap ammo to rightwing idiots?

[BlobbyKC @BlobbyKC]

@DanNeidle @alexmassie Nah I try to spend my time on actual economists and peer-reviewed analysis not social media influencers like you.

[BlobbyKC @BlobbyKC]

@NagleBall @afneil @DanNeidle There is actually no evidence of £22m loss, that is social media influencer Dan Neidle's imaginary figure he's made up.

The facts are: Revenue collected in the top-rate band rose from £1.876 billion to £2.069 billion: an increase of £193 million.

[BlobbyKC @BlobbyKC]

@ArgyleBecky There is actually no evidence of £22m loss, that is social media influencer Dan Neidle's imaginary figure he's made up.

The facts are: Revenue collected in the top-rate band rose from £1.876 billion to £2.069 billion: an increase of £193 million.

[BlobbyKC @BlobbyKC]

@LovedayWrites @CPhilpOfficial There is actually no evidence of £22m loss, that is social media influencer Dan Neidle's imaginary figure he's made up.

The facts are: Revenue collected in the top-rate band rose from £1.876 billion to £2.069 billion: an increase of £193 million.

[BlobbyKC @BlobbyKC]

@CPhilpOfficial There is actually no evidence of £22m loss, that is social media influencer Dan Neidle's imaginary figure he's made up.

The facts are: Revenue collected in the top-rate band rose from £1.876 billion to £2.069 billion: an increase of £193 million.

[BlobbyKC @BlobbyKC]

@SNP_Failures @theSNP There is actually no evidence of £22m loss, that is social media influencer Dan Neidle's imaginary figure he's made up.

The facts are: Revenue collected in the top-rate band rose from £1.876 billion to £2.069 billion: an increase of £193 million.

[BlobbyKC @BlobbyKC]

@tomintoultory @AgentP22 @dht1690 There is actually no evidence of £22m loss, that is social media influencer Dan Neidle's imaginary figure he's made up.

The facts are: Revenue collected in the top-rate band rose from £1.876 billion to £2.069 billion: an increase of £193 million.