Bloggers have been having lots of fun today picking apart a BBC article on the benefits cap, in which she distraught family said they would need to choose between "heating and eating" if the cap were introduced. But of course, their spending on cigarettes, alcohol and Sky TV budgets would remain.

Now, given my constant criticism of UKuncut and other idiotic tax campaigners, I have a reputation for being right wing. This isn't fair. I'm swayed not by dogma but by evidence. It just happens that, at this point in my life, I find that the evidence tends to support so-called right wing positions and tends to refute so-called left wing positions. But I remain open-minded as to what the evidence tells me.

So, here's the challenge. I cannot contemplate how anyone could expect strangers to support them through the tax system in excess of the cap. Clearly, this article fails to convince. So, can anyone justify, perhaps from their own budget, why the cap would be unworkable for them?

Because I can't envisage the situation where more than £26,000 is required, my view is that prima facie, the cap is a good thing. Only hard evidence from a real budget could convince me. So, where is it?

But that brings us to a serious concern about the original BBC article. Suppose there really is no evidence of the cruelty of the benefit cap. That would mean the BBC would have not been able to find a sympathetic family to review. In that case, one wonders why did the BBC commission the article in the first place. Just to point and laugh?

And if there is good evidence, why pick this family instead of an actual family in need? Either way, I'm pretty underwhelmed by the article, which smacks of profoundly lazy journalism. I'd like to believe in the kindness of the human spirit, but there's not much of it to be found in the way this article has been published.

Filed under: Current issues, Other blogs with tags bbc, budgeting, evidence, smoking, ukuncut, welfare benefits
5997No Comments »http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fcablog.org.uk%2F2012%2F02%2Fin-which-i-wonder-about-that-bbc-article-on-the-benefit-cap%2FIn+which+I+wonder+about+that+BBC+article+on+the+benefit+cap2012-02-01+21%3A41%3A14Christie+Malryhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.fcablog.org.uk%2F%3Fp%3D5997

I just caught a brief piece on the Today Programme about changes that are proposed to disability benefits. During this piece, it was claimed that the government was going to cut disability benefits by 20%. Only, when challenged, it was conceded that spending would broadly remain at the same level, but that - in time - that level would be some 20% lower than recipients might have expected.

If you're spending £100 on something this year and £80 next year, that's a 20% cut. If you're spending £100 on something this year and £100 next year then that's a 0% cut. To describe it as a 20% cut merely because you thought you were going to spend £125 next year is totally misleading.

Now, I recognise the need for disability benefits and the great improvement they bring to people's lives. But, if you're trying to convince the Chancellor why he should prioritise spending money there instead of, say, education or the National Health Service, please can campaigners base their appeal on facts rather than blatant lies?  Is that really too much to ask? There's an argument to be made for spending more on disability benefits. So make it. To exaggerate or lie about your case merely suggests to taxpayers that your arguments for prioritising spending on disability benefits, when it comes down to it, are weak.

Filed under: Politics with tags bbc, disability living allowance, lies, statistics, today programme
5911No Comments »http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fcablog.org.uk%2F2012%2F01%2Fits-a-good-idea-not-to-lie-about-disability-benefits%2FIt%27s+a+good+idea+not+to+lie+about+disability+benefits2012-01-17+08%3A57%3A45Christie+Malryhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.fcablog.org.uk%2F%3Fp%3D5911

On Twitter, auditor Truenfairview gets cross with the BBC's reporting of the recent shooting in County Durham on this morning's Today programme (For seven days from the date of this post, you can listen to the reporting here).

Watching an auditor criticising journalism set me thinking about how journalists criticise auditing. Take, for example, our old friend Ian Fraser, proof positive that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing:

Why does this matter? Because if audit firms are as cozy with their clients as they have been over the past 15 to 20 years, they are a waste of space. As I said in the opener, they may also have become a danger to capitalism itself.

Most of his work consists of diatribes like this, 'supported' by a list of the engagements where audit firms failed to meet all the requirements of ethical or auditing standards. Despite never having been on an audit or worked for an accountancy firm, he argues that he is entitled to criticise the audit profession in this way, even though he does so in a biased and imbalanced fashion that fails to take account of the tens of thousands of audit engagements that meet the exacting standards in full.

Of course, journalists aren't immune from public criticism; the Leveson enquiry has been probing certain improper practices that were apparently rife in some tabloid newspapers.  But Leveson has been focusing on activities that are already largely illegal rather than merely in breach of professional standards. Indeed, journalists have no professional standards because, despite their protestations, they're not a profession. That doesn't mean that some journalists aren't professional. But it does mean that journalists are held to a much lower standard of conduct than professional auditors.

Fraser, in criticising the Big 4, fails to demonstrate any causal link between the actions of auditors and any ultimate harm caused to third parties. In fact, in some cases - such as in the recent case over pwc and client money regulations at JP Morgan - he doesn't even show that any harm was caused. It's the mere breach of regulations that they were required to follow that matters. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that auditors shouldn't be required to follow the standards expected of them. But I do believe that any criticism of the profession should consider the work done by auditors in the round, rather than selecting the worst examples of their performance and pretending that they are representative of the rest of their work.

Similarly, nothing will come of the BBC's sloppy reporting this morning. It's virtually impossible to link a particular report to any harm caused. Even without this, there are no external standards that they can be held to. Of course, the BBC ought to hold itself to a much higher standard because, unlike commercial news organisations, the ultimate sanction - withdrawing your patronage - doesn't apply to them, thanks to the licence fee.

However, I wouldn't support a wholesale professionalisation of journalism, because it could be used to exclude amateur writers, such as this blogger, from writing and reporting. But I do think it appropriate for journalists who work for major newspapers or who want to be taken seriously to hold themselves to the same high standards some of their number seem to think appropriate for the Big 4.

So which journalist(s) will be the first to take the lead?

Filed under: Auditing, Ethics with tags audit quality, bbc, big 4, ian fraser, journalists, jp morgan, leveson, pricewaterhousecoopers, twitter
5791No Comments »http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fcablog.org.uk%2F2012%2F01%2Fjournalists-vs-auditors%2FJournalists+vs+auditors2012-01-03+16%3A01%3A48Christie+Malryhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.fcablog.org.uk%2F%3Fp%3D5791

Twitter has got itself very excited today over #realmenoftheyear and #realwomenoftheyear. This all kicked off due to those rather silly articles on rather silly websites which list their men and women of the year because they haven't got any real news to report.

I'm sorry, but I have no patience for any of this bullshit. The criteria used to draw up both lists reflect the distorted priorities of those who would sell us news, not what's actually important to our daily lives. If we drew up a better set of criteria, based on what really makes a difference to people's lives, and applied it to the entire world, rather than just those few individuals (mostly men) which the media consider interesting, then we wouldn't need two lists. And we would probably find that it would be men struggling to get on the 'proper' list.

Filed under: Current issues with tags bbc, criteria, men, polemic, realmenoftheyear, realwomenoftheyear, twitter, women
5762No Comments »http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fcablog.org.uk%2F2011%2F12%2Freal-women-of-the-year%2FReal+wo%2Fmen+of+the+year2011-12-28+17%3A43%3A20Christie+Malryhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.fcablog.org.uk%2F%3Fp%3D5762

It's an old joke, but it's still funny:

Because it makes e-mails really hard to understand.

> Why?

>> Top-posting in e-mails!

>>> What annoys you the most?

And it looks like James Murdoch will be adopting the top-posting defence to show that, no, he really didn't have any knowledge about the phone hacking that was taking place at the News of the World:

Emails showing James Murdoch was copied into messages where the potential scope of phone hacking at the News of the World was discussed in June 2008 have been released by MPs.One mentions a "nightmare scenario" arising out of a case brought by PFA footballers' union boss Gordon Taylor.Mr Murdoch has said he only read the most recent email in the chain, requesting a meeting.

In the good old days, it was generally seen as better 'netiquette' to not forward great gobs of e-mail on to people. Instead, you were encouraged to include only enough of the earlier e-mails to make it clear to what you were replying, and to include your response below the text, not above it. Now, had this approach been adopted, someone would have had to take a conscious decision precisely what to inform James Murdoch about.

The top-posting craze, which is largely Microsoft's fault, means that enormous chains get constructed very quickly. A great deal of it consists solely of other people's legal disclaimers, so people tend to simply ignore it altogether. Unless expressly instructed to do so, I certainly never go back through pages and pages of old e-mail just in case there may be some nugget I'm expected to have picked up.

An additional defence which James Murdoch may wish to consider is the "I get lots of e-mail, you know" defence. As a director of a major international business, it's naive to presume that he can read and retain all salient information from every e-mail he has ever received. If prosecutors want his head, they're going to need a gun with rather more smoke coming out of it than they have at the moment.

Filed under: Technology with tags bbc, e-mail, hacking, james murdoch, microsoft, news of the world, top-posting
57212 Comments »http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fcablog.org.uk%2F2011%2F12%2Fjames-murdochs-e-mail-defences%2FJames+Murdoch%27s+e-mail+defences2011-12-13+23%3A51%3A43Christie+Malryhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.fcablog.org.uk%2F%3Fp%3D5721

No, it's not Ritchie for once, although his time will surely come.

This morning on Radio 4's Today programme, there was a short piece about obesity during which a representative of the food industry made the following extraordinary claim:

All the evidence shows that a tax on fatty foods would not change consumer behaviour.

When it was pointed out that this is Murphybollocks of the highest order, he 'clarified':

I haven't seen any evidence that shows that a tax would change behaviour.

Which isn't the same thing at all. But even the watered down version is idiotic. For virtually all markets, making something more expensive reduces its demand. The onus on the food industry is to prove that it won't. Intuitively, baked beans aren't like shares or houses: we will buy more when their price falls.

More seriously, why was this idiot allowed to make such a bogus claim in the first place? Is this what public policy in the 21st century has become? A load of lying toerags making a living out of telling complete falsehoods about tax and other economic matters?

Filed under: Taxation with tags baked beans, bbc, food, idiots, lies, today programme
49132 Comments »http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fcablog.org.uk%2F2011%2F08%2Ftax-tosser-of-the-day%2FTax+tosser+of+the+day2011-08-26+08%3A08%3A38Christie+Malryhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.fcablog.org.uk%2F2011%2F08%2Ftax-tosser-of-the-day%2F

City AM reports that the ICAEW is now gunning for Edward Hunter, the Apprentice candidate who was first out of the boardroom on Tuesday night.

"There's no shame in being an accountant," said an outraged Gavin Aspden, director of qualifications at the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, which accredited Hunter. "We remain the most popular breeding ground for future chief executives, with 14 of the current FTSE 100 CEOs qualifying with ICAEW, up from 11 last year."

Poor Edward. Yet am I the only one who finds the concept of a "breeding ground" for CEOs, well, rather icky? Are there perhaps a load of superinjunctions involving major business figures?

Filed under: Entertainment with tags apprentice, bbc, city am, edward hunter, ftse 100, gavin aspden, icaew, sex
4792No Comments »http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fcablog.org.uk%2F2011%2F05%2Fbreeding-writing-and-arithmetic-the-icaew-slams-edward%2FBreeding%2C+writing+and+arithmetic...+the+ICAEW+slams+Edward2011-05-13+08%3A38%3A20Christie+Malryhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.fcablog.org.uk%2F2011%2F05%2Fbreeding-writing-and-arithmetic-the-icaew-slams-edward%2F

After last night's catastrophic performance from accountant Edward Hunter, I rang ICAEW first thing this morning to check which body he belongs to.

Yep, he's one of ours. This is a bit of a setback in my crusade to portray chartered accountants as hip, modern and relevant. But, as they say, you've got to roll with the punches.

Filed under: Entertainment, Institutes with tags apprentice, bbc, edward hunter, icaew, not zesty, roll with the punches
47903 Comments »http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fcablog.org.uk%2F2011%2F05%2Fconfirmed-apprentices-edward-hunter-is-an-icaew-member%2F%2A%2A%2A+Confirmed%3A+Apprentice%27s+Edward+Hunter+is+an+ICAEW+member+%2A%2A%2A2011-05-11+07%3A52%3A25Christie+Malryhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.fcablog.org.uk%2F2011%2F05%2Fconfirmed-apprentices-edward-hunter-is-an-icaew-member%2F

One of the stranger parts of today's Today programme was the business section. There was a geezer plugging his book about gambling, in which he documents how to make a living out of placing bets on things. He had had several notable successes, including tipping Spain to win the football world cup.

One of the more unpleasant parts of his interview was where he referred to what he called a "facespitter" bet. This is a win that's so large that you can go up to your boss and spit in his face. You'll lose your job, for sure, but can live off your winnings instead.

I found it rather alarming when he described how large a facespitter bet would be. £40,000. Even allowing for the fact that gambling winnings don't attract income tax (although, see below), this is a pitifully small amount of money. If used to buy a flat rate annuity, perhaps a silly thing to do in today's inflationary climate, it would generate £2,000 a year, or about £40 a week. Is that worth losing your job for?

Or perhaps he imagines he'll need a lot of facespitters in his lifetime. It's hardly a comfortable existence.

I save the old fashioned way, in shares, and I know precisely how much more I need to save before I can spit in my boss's face, not that I ever would. As of now, it's another £268,000. That's a lot of money, but it's broadly achievable. And a great deal more honest than some shyster exploiting people's financial illiteracy and claiming you can get by on less.

Oh, and I believe (would welcome confirmation from a tax expert) that HMRC will treat otherwise tax exempt income as taxable if it becomes your trade. So, gambling income ordinarily isn't taxed, but will be at the point at which you become a professional gambler. You were warned!

Written on my Android mobile phone. Article may be edited later.

Filed under: Current issues, Economics with tags bbc, gambling, pensions, saving, spitting, today programme
4649No Comments »http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fcablog.org.uk%2F2011%2F02%2Fspit-in-my-face-and-tell-me-that-you-hate-me%2FSpit+in+my+face+and+tell+me+that+you+hate+me+2011-02-17+12%3A40%3A00Christie+Malryhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.fcablog.org.uk%2F%3Fp%3D4649

Labour leader Ed Miliband was on the Today programme this morning, in a mid length interview with grizzler-in-chief, John Humphrys. And it was a real stinker. Even the party faithful are struggling to maintain a smile in the face of his lack of vision, monodrone delivery and hapless inability to grasp even his own policies (inasmuch as he actually has any). The CiF brigade similarly found little to like. Most ire so far has focused on his refusal to define who he means by the term "squeezed middle".

But there was a far worse howler in there. Humphrys asked about the 50% tax rate, over which Miliband had slapped down his own Shadow Chancellor about whether it should be permanent. Miliband thought it should be permanent because it would help to bring down the deficit and because,  for people earning a lot, a marginal rate of 50% was fair. He then said that 60% would not be fair.

Danger, Will Robinson! The 50% rate only applies to those earning over £150,000 per year. Those earning between £100,000 and £150,000 pay a marginal rate, thanks to National Insurance and withdrawal of the personal allowance, of 61%. There are even worse marginal rates at lower levels of income thanks to the impact of benefits withdrawal.

If a marginal tax rate of 60% is unfair for someone earning £150,000, how can Miliband explain the former Labour government, of which he was part, presiding over the introduction of a marginal rate of 61% on those earning much less (even accepting that it's still a lot of money). And why dither for so long over the effective marginal rates for benefit claimants?

Answers, Ed? He'd better be quick; after today's miserable performance, the vultures in his own party will be circling.

Written on my Android mobile phone. Article may be edited later.

Filed under: Politics with tags bbc, ed miliband, idiots, john humphrys, labour, marginal tax rate, national insurance
4466No Comments »http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fcablog.org.uk%2F2010%2F11%2Fmilibands-howler-over-marginal-rates-on-today%2FMiliband%27s+howler+over+marginal+rates+on+Today2010-11-26+13%3A51%3A03Christie+Malryhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.fcablog.org.uk%2F2010%2F11%2Fmilibands-howler-over-marginal-rates-on-today%2F