Paul Krugman wrote a New York Times piece at the weekend praising the thinking of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
What thinking, precisely?
Her support for highest income tax rates of up to 80%, to be exact.
Because, as he pointed out, there is plenty of economic theory to suggest that such rates make sense.
And plenty of economic data to show that they do no harm.
Whereas the opposite demand, for low rates, has no evidential support at all.
So Krugman praised her use of evidence.
I would go further. I praise her courage to embrace an important issue, to state her case even if it outrages some, and to show she has conviction to back the evidence.
If only we could see some of that in the UK.
We could have a Green New Eeal.
And the associated necessary tax reforms to match it, in association with up to date macroeconomic understanding of money.
Instead we have politicians on the left who discuss incomprehensible Brexit policy and rail nationalisation.
If only.
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:
If the best GOP can come up with to damage her is dancing on the roof whilst at university then her message must be scary for some.
Indeed
She’s probably a better dancer than they are too. That enrages them further.
God your such a bore..what’s gets me is why you are happy egging on orhers instead of doing anything real yourself..or you could give up this academic pretence and scrounge for funding and get a real job which contributes to economic growth like the rest of us..
So education doesn’t contribute to economic growth? That’s an interesting idea
Teaching people to build things and generate revenue is different from eductating students about politica and about how you feel things should be in your world. Promotes more observers and fewer contributors so not GDP enhancing. Quite the opposite in fact.
Wow…..
Have you noted that stuff about GDP this morning?
And gave you lived?
Let alone ever observed?
“Teaching people to build things and generate revenue is different from eductating students about politica and about how you feel things should be in your world. Promotes more observers and fewer contributors so not GDP enhancing”
Oh yes, and that’s why all the great civilisations reject higher learning and limit themselves to vocational training with the odd technical diploma course here and there. Everyone knows that.
“a real job which contributes to economic growth like the rest of us”
Yeah! like finance which produces nothing and skims the surplus off the real economy.
Or anonymous trolls trying to look big with the tiniest fraction of a clue on their subject of choice, not really. Here, learn something while your trying find a real name:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/rentseeking.asp
https://neweconomicperspectives.org/2014/03/financial-sector-greatest-parasite-human-history.html
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/11/stiglitz-heres-how-to-fix-inequality/413761/
Jason
The man you are addressing has won accolades for his campaigning and has also written a number of books (one being mentioned in Parliament). He has also taught at a University. All these things are recognised as paid work.
These outputs seem rather tangible to me?
He also had a number of ‘real’ jobs before he got into this.
And your point? What was it exactly?
Deal, not Eeal 🙂
What about this one?
https://www.marinefishez.com/saltwater-fish/eel/green-wolf-eel-detail
The UK desperately needs new political leadership but this will clearly not come from either of the established main parties. At the moment the sanest voice in Parliament seems to be from Caroline Lucas and the Green Party, whether on reversing Brexit, moving to a green economy, or preparing for a future Basic Income. But under our first past the post voting system there seems little chance of a breakthrough centre party emerging. This is why I am increasingly convinced that we need a ranked choice voting system to help new parties get started, and curb the worst excesses of bi-partisan politics. The problem is how to get the two major political parties to allow a change that will create real competition for their duopoly?
The Greens have just consigned themselves to oblivion with the meat tax. A shame but there ya go. Disenchantment with politicians is leading people to seek solutions via spontaneous convergence, coming together to address social problems in a social manner. I regard this as a retreat into habit, a welcome return to tribalism. When the tribes get too big, the structure simply doesn’t work. Small is indeed beautiful 🙂
Taxing the bads has a lot of logic going for it
Meat is not a good thing
I see all the issues – but welcome the idea
The book “The Spirit level” makes good arguments for societies having greater equality – economically (educationally etc). The 80% would thus be a step in that direction – & we have been there before – I think rates in the late 1960s through to the 1970s were heading past 90% (& the Uk did not seem a particularly bad place for having such rates).
“Teaching people to build things and generate revenue is different from eductating students about politica and about how you feel things should be in your world. Promotes more observers and fewer contributors so not GDP enhancing.”
Was that put through Google Translate or do need we might more grammar have teaching?
It might be an idea to consider caution is disparaging rail nationalisation off-hand. Taken out of context that could be easily misconstrued as support for privatised rail as we know it.
I explained my logic recently
I have no faith in privatised rail
But there are much higher priorities than nationalising our railways
Yes, I know that because I saw the article that you mention. But if I hadn’t seen the article and saw the last sentence in your post above I might have got the wrong end of the stick.
I’m not making a major point here, its just something to consider.
Ok, noted
I’m not sure what is wrong with discussing rail nationalisation. On Labour’s Brexit approach you are right to be frustrated.
A more interesting conversation might be about alternative forms of ownership rather than the simple binary choice between state or private ownership which we get offered at the moment. Mutuals…co-ops… public benefit corporations. Some of those might be rather more effective in linking the interests of customer, employee and wider society
Absolutely. My concern is that ideas that differ greatly from the accepted norm often end up watered down. Eventually a radical idea becomes more of a tweek within accepted norms rather than anything new. Dismissing the idea of nationalisation seems to me to be a worrying step towards conformity. Privatisations of public services have often been sold to us by the promise of greater efficiency and reduced costs. Managing to achieve that whilst extracting ‘profit’ has proven difficult and has needed further injections of funds from government.
I am not rigidly stuck on nationalisation but do not believe that key areas like transort, health, power, water and education should not be privately owned.
I agree that all those services need to be publicity controlled
Over time I would want that
But I simply stress the over time bit
they have super high income tax rates in france …. and especially nice regressive taxes on fuel…yellow vest anyone?
We couldn’t get an AOC in the UK, or many other european countries.
The education system, the class system, the Establishment would all put up barricades to stop someone like her, as things stand.
We need to overhaul our whole educational, social and political organisation before one of her kind can emerge here.
So America isn’t all bad after all. It has Trump, but he won’t be there forever. We have Brexit, which might stay with us for a long time.
They have Mueller. We have Cadwallader. Not playing in the same league.
She is brave indeed, and as she is intelligent, she must know that her project will encounter powerful obstacles, if ever it gets to be offered to the american people.
She is very young, lacks experience of the ‘crab basket’, but she has had another experience, that of the real world as a working class Latino woman…so she’ll cope with Congress.
She’s a positive role model for so many youngsters too ( is that tangible and economically beneficial enough…?), so she may change many minds on what is real and what can be achieved.
We’ll see, but I can tell she has the guts, the character, the energy, the brains and, very important, the sense of humour and detachment, to tackle the panier de crabes.
Is she courageous enough to legislate for an 80% tax rate?
Or is she just about brave enough to grab a headline or two by suggesting it?
Let’s have a meaningful measure of courage too.
As the youngest member of Congress not all legisaaltion is undertaken at her behest, as yet
Give it time
I think that although it is relevant that we discuss income tax, there have been discussions here in the past that have talked about widening the tax net (more emphasis on those things that are not taxed or under taxed like land) with a view to perhaps reducing say income tax levels.
I’m just piping up with this because I am a little disappointed in a way that income tax debate still seems to be rather orthodox as opposed to being part of a more heterodox, creative debate.
However, it is good to see an American politician other than Sanders talking about this. And yes, if the mega rich use their tax breaks to undermine democracy, then higher tax rates for them may indeed be necessary. But there are other ways – the taxing of assets in particular which can all be dealt with by a Government with the will to do it.
I am keen to cut VAT – and maybe NIC – before income tax
I would add wealth, financial transaction and land taxes
When taxing wealth how do we avoid repeating the Danish mistakes?
https://cepr.org/active/publications/discussion_papers/dp.php?dpno=12780
“Denmark used to impose one of the world’s highest marginal tax rates on wealth, but this tax was drastically reduced and ultimately abolished between 1989 and 1997. Due to the specific design of the wealth tax, these changes provide a compelling quasi- experiment for understanding behavioral responses among the wealthiest segments of the population.”
Denmark still has the highest wealth inequality in the EU.
Easy
We can now trace wealth in tax havens
So the abuse that ended this tax cannot so readily happen now