I did a twelve minute talk on the good, the bad and the ugly of tax last night. These were my speaking notes:
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I’ve just picked this up from Mark GB blog. I think it’s worth ‘reminding’ ourselves of this.
“We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men”
George Orwell
With respect, I think that’s what your ‘twelve minute talk notes’ from yesterday imply you were doing. Richard.
I see no signs of rocket science in that sketch outline of applied common sense political economic philosophy.
I’m afraid you’ll just have to keep saying it.
That’s the game
You’re right
Hi Richard. There’s nowhere else suitable to ask this, so I hope you don’t mind me posing my question here.
Since you accept MMT as a descriptive analysis of how the economy, or at least money, works in practice, what is the purpose of economic immigration?
Obviously, we do not need economic migrants to keep the government in credit like a bank account, since their taxes do not fund anything.
There is obviously the argument that immigrants’ taxes contribute to the control of inflation as much as indigenous workers’ do, but MMT advocates themselves are divided on which taxes best control inflation: some are sympathetic to a LVT; Warren Mosler wants to eliminate income tax and VAT; and since MMT is descriptive, there is no reason why it cannot be adapted to a small state attractive to someone like Jacob Rees-Mogg as much as to a Corbynista big government (Reagan ran a high deficit to expand the economy but left the money in circulation for longer by taxing less and not spending more).
Bearing that in mind, it seems to me that using economic migration for the purpose of inflation control through taxation is a preference (ideological or otherwise), rather than a necessity, given that there isn’t a uniform prescription by MMTers on what type and rate of taxes work best. The same goal could be achieved by a range of alterations of the tax system, without immigration.
Note that I’m not saying that you or anyone else should oppose immigration; merely that it strikes me that immigration policy, be it extremely relaxed or extremely restrictive, is a choice, none of which is a sine qua non of a well-functioning economy.
Am I right or totally off the mark? This is just a thought off the top of my head. I am relatively new to MMT and am thinking of ‘basic’ features of the economy that this analysis turns on their heads.
You are making a fundamental mistake of assuming money is real
It isn’t: it’s all make believe, literally
MMT let’s what is possible happens
That’s it
To suggest that this means migration should be controlled is, candidly, a link I could never make and which cannot in any way be derived from MMT
I’m not sure I was making that assumption. I certainly didn’t intend it to come across that way.
What is the purpose of economic migration, then, if MMT fundamentally has nothing to say on it either way? The idea that it is necessary for contribute to state coffers through taxation is clearly incorrect if MMT is right, so what is it for, exactly?
With respect no one has suggested it is to contrinute to state coffers
If you wish to make up arguments that make no sense and have no relationship to what anyone has said you are of course free to do so
Just as I am free to not bother replying to them
“With respect no one has suggested it is to contrinute to state coffers
If you wish to make up arguments that make no sense and have no relationship to what anyone has said you are of course free to do so
Just as I am free to not bother replying to them”
In every election since I can remember, the argument put in favour of immigration is that immigrants contribute towards the economy and that tax revenue from them is particularly vital to combat the effects of an ageing society. If MMT is correct, then it seems obvious that this is wrong.
All I’m asking is simply: what is the function and purpose of immigration? I’m not saying you ought to oppose immigration; I’m merely posing a question from neutral ground.
To put it in a different, starker way: what would be the effect on the economy, from an MMT analysis, if immigration were completely banned?
I am sorry, but there is no link
The question simply makes no sense
And it is simply not true that this argument is made
It is said migrants add to the country because of the skills they bring and are not a cost because of what they pay
But to say this is a tax driven issue is just wrong
It isn’t
I have been directed to the Medium account of MMT advocate Neil Wilson, who would appear to disagree with you on that one. One of his tabs is just for immigration. He argues in one of his articles for zero net immigration.
https://medium.com/@aldursys
I disagree with a lot of what Neil Wilson says
He is indifferent to tax havens for a start
I disagree with this as well if that is what he is saying, but I probably won’t be reading it
Is there any chance that you could do a briefing on Land Value Tax please?
Is it the panacea many claim it to be?
Sorry to drop this into this thread irrelevantly.
If time permits
Spoiler alert: no
Chuckles for the spoiler alert and thanks.