The Guardian is it the only outlet to have an article by me on the Taxing Wealth Report over the last day or so. So too has Prospect magazine.
I think we can be sure that the message will have been heard by now.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Tik Tok is where it’s at now. The G and Prospect are read by pensioners.
Well spotted
I had never realsied that*
* Irony warning
I hope that following the wider publicising of your Taxing Wealth Report voters will start to say to themselves enough off this silly ideological division between market and state perfectionism lets have a party in England that’s pragmatic and seeks to provide good service by whoever is best placed to deliver for the well-being benefit of all.
This will mean a party that is willing to make the effort to understand how the UK’s fiat monetary system really works and will undertook a root and branch examination of how equitable the country’s taxation system is since both impinge on each other. Both of these things have been shoved under the carpet by parties bewitched by Thatcherite or rather Neoliberalism’s market perfectionism and the country is clearly the worse for it.
We now have a situation in the UK where none of its parties can be described as pragmatic and balanced in their approach to the country’s problems.
Richard
Irony warning noted
It does seem ironic that Sir Edward Troup criticises taxation as legalised extortion as ex-boss of HMRC
and gets appointed to Labours new tax advisors
You rightly criticise ICAEW and they ask you to resign
keep up the good work- you’re rightly appreciated for what you do – at least on this blog
Sorry to go off thread.
In December, 2023 the British government made a big announcement to shore up the declining confidence of Aberdeen in Westminster’s interest in climate change and energy. “Minister for the Cabinet Office John Glen MP said: ‘We’re announcing a new second headquarters for the department of Energy Security and Net Zero. They obviously already have a considerable presence in Aberdeen given how central the industry is to the city. But we are now going to have this second headquarters where hundreds more will come to work and live in the city'” (BBC News). At the quantum was said to be 200 jobs, although not confirmed.
The outcome by April, 2024? 35 jobs. The Government spokesperson now says “we never committed to a specific number of roles in the city” (Press and Journal, today). That will make no real difference to energy thinking in the heart of Westminster. It was never intended to do much for Aberdeen, Scotland, the energy sector or climate change; which makes it much like the purpose of devolution – to look good, fail and allow government to abolish it and close down everything outside London. But they extended the windfall tax in the Budget. Give with one had, take withe the other; then take back what you have just been promised. Westminster Government in action.
And there you have how politics is conducted in Britain today. Make an announcement that sounds good to the target audience in some scammed-by-Government area of the country. Milk it for all its worth. bathe in the glory. Betray it. Shrug your shoulders and move on, confident that most of the Press (outside the betrayed) will do you a favour and swerve round it, because they are your gophers; and move on, confident that the political circus has moved on to make much of your latest Big Lie. And on, and on……
Well noted
Keep it going by whatever means possible Richard. Bit by bit the walls of neo-liberal greed, ignorance and incompetence are crumbling.
An example of what you are still up against came earlier today when on the Today programme ex-Tory MP Nick Robinson advertised his attempt to get the views of an unbiased expert on governing Britain by trailing his interview with ex-Tory chancellor, current Tory Peer and top City freeloader, Philip Hammond.
Gosh, I wonder what he is going to say.
Asking Philip Hammond ‘how to pay for it’. That was desperate.
Thanks once again for your taxing wealth report, which is greatly needed. I’m delighted it is getting noticed. Yay. 🙂
Unfortunately, and I’m sure you’re well aware of this, indeed it is probably necessary, that the report is written as if tax funds spending. Consequently it may reinforce the myth of tax then spend.
I was not, therefore surprised, but slightly disheartened, to read the following in the Prospect article. “The result is that there is much more money available to fund the transformation of UK society than politicians realise—and that can be spent without creating inflation.”
Of course there is much more money available to fund the transformation of UK society. But it does not follow that because we can find that money through tax that it is definitely not inflationary. Inflation happens when more money is spent than there are available real resources. It doesn’t matter whether that money is spent privately or by the government. If, suddenly, the top 1%, decided to spend a proportion of their wealth, that they currently save, there might well be inflationary consequences; the government does not control that. Which is one reason why excessive wealth should be curtailed; it risks destabilising the economy.
Now, I suspect that the government could spend a lot more than it currently does without inflation. That is I suspect there is considerable slack in the economy. To justify that I look at the US economy, where both Biden, and Trump previously, have spent a great deal (significant budget deficits, leading to controversy about debt ceilings) and the US economy is growing rapidly without inflation (yes there has been transitory inflation due to exogenous factors, pandemic and war – but not due to excess spending).
But it troubles me that your welcome contribution may bolster a false understanding of the economy. I hasten to add that this is by no means a criticism. Sadly I don’t have a solution.
I will address this issue, but you are completely wrong. I can only guess you have not read the report as it is not in the slightest way written as if tax funds spending. It does not.
But the Prospect comment is wholly right. Unless we have greater capacity to tax MMT makes clear we cannot spend more without the risk of inflation unless we are below full employment, and in practical terms that is not clear in the U.K. at present.
So, I am sorry that not only are you wrong about the TWR but you are also very wrong about MMT.
You say there is slack in the economy. In time we may find that. But it is not there at present in a way that can be used. We will gave to disagree, but if my irritation shows at your suggestion it does so appropriately. I do not like being accused of what I have not done.
My apologies for having irritated you. That was not my intent.
I’m sorry if I seemed to imply that your TWR was written as if taxing funds spending. I know it was not. I know you were careful not to do that. I know you did not intend, at all, to imply that.
Nevertheless, the TWR, was not a treatises on how the economy works. It was, as I understand it, a response to the question “how will you pay for it”. That question inherently assumes that tax pays for spending when we know it does not.
I was trying to suggest, not very clearly it seems, that were are below full employment. Although unemployment figures are low there is a lot of underemployment. I take my lead from William Mitchell, though I know you don’t always agree with him (me neither).
What I was, cack-handedly, saying is we need to try to foster proper understanding of the economy (and I know you do that a lot). That is, that the MSM may, probably will, misinterpret your TWR, as supporting tax then spend, when it doesn’t do that.
Once again, thanks for the TWR, and I’m very glad it is being noticed. And so sorry for inadvertently having offended you.
Tim
Have you looked at chapter 16?
Best – and no hard feelings
Richard
I have privately messaged you with similar concerns to those posed here by Tim.
I agree you have made clear in the report that that tax comes AFTER spend. But it appears in Chapter 16, as you point out in your reply, in particular 16.5 which is on page 409. But maybe that should have been Chapter 1, page 1?
I’m very sorry to have apparently upset you. I was only trying to field potential objections.
I could have put it on page 1
And almost no one would have read anymore
Shall we accept the reality of the world we live in and the constraints it imposes on how anything I say is going to be interpreted?
If you want change to happen don’t start with a theory that alienates people. My choice is the economics of the real world
I think the report having gained such traction in the mainstream media (even the Guardian comments in below the line were mostly positive) is terribly exciting and vindicates Richard’s chosen approach to communication. Audience is key…
I am admit to being pleasantly surprised by the significant support in the comments in the Graun. That is good news.
Accepted. Let’s move on.
Nobody agrees about everything. Reality is contingent. It bites unexpectedly. Nobody understands everything. That is not a barrier to progress. The proposition that we need to agree about everything has a formal name: ideology. Ideology never works. I have just read the comments on this thread of people who essentially agree on what seems to matter at the heart of things; but have disagreements about technicalities. So what. Stick at it, and together. We are in a deep hole, and the politicians in power or opposition are not up to the task required; quite obviously. We have been recruiting the wrong people, for too long. The public, in the end is responsible for that. We need new thinking, new people, new ideas. Hang together, and never reduce it all to a single principle, that has never actually ever been attained. Settle for improving the messy reality.
That is my unsolicited opinion of the differences in this thread, for whatever that is worth.
Thanks