Interview with the economist billionaires fear: this is how we get a wealth tax

Claiming to have an academic understanding of economics, is no use whatsoever if the economics are proved not to work in practice.
The theory that governments can create money without limit or consequences is simply not understood, there is a limit on how much and for what purpose before investors loose confidence, and either interest rate rises or currency value falls, or both.

Thanks MaizieD 👋 ever onwards. I'll speak up more in the moment.

LemonJam

Fair enough- and my comments were from my personal perspective.

Ever onwards!

I would like to apologise if you felt I was trying to talk down to you. It was in no way intentional. I admit I do tend to be argumentative, which is why I have these exchanges with David, we kind of feed off each other.

I will try to be not so annoying. Do tell me to shut up if need be...

Fair enough- and my comments were from my personal perspective.

Ever onwards!

And i would like to add that maizie is a long standing "friend" and has been very kind to me

lemonjam

Thats fine.

But now i think maizie must be fed up with criticism and in any case it will seem like a pile on. So hopefully we can all get back to normal.
The wonders of MMT can still be celebrated and i can continue to see it as a curates egg.

Ever onwards!!!

Sorry WWM2 I was responding to your post as though it was from MazieD- my error.

I fully agree with what you are saying. I value those with expert knowledge sharing their expert knowledge- always. But there is never a reason to dismiss and belittle others who may not have such experience knowledge.

I apologise for my mistake again - that skewed my reply.

Whitewavemark2

If I might add my two-pennorth worth.

I think that although many posters might not say so, some will have degrees in economics or other related subjects which involved a reasonable understanding of economics - so many on threads such as these will have a good working knowledge of the different economic theories, how they have affected society and how they have brought changes over time, and more importantly how they will affect the future.

I think this should be accepted as read.

So could I make a request for less assumption about a persons knowledge or lack of, and taking each post at its face value and not try to second guess a persons knowledge of the subject.

If that makes sense?

MaizieD what you are requesting of me is what I was requesting from you, so thank you. That is, I was highlighting that your questioning of my knowledge and posts does on occasion came across as condescending etc.

Fingers crossed it will now stop.

As an aside, I would doubt that there are any posters that have a degree in economics and politics and medicine and law, etc etc which cover some usual, topical core posts. Many posters have interests in those various topics and would like to post- but feel shut down when other posters respond in a dismissive way or have their knowledge questioned. You have no idea what qualifications or degrees at bachelor, masters or PHD level I may hold and that should not matter.

Further, all posters have experienced the impact of economic models on their daily lives over the years also, not just those that have degrees in economics.

Lemon jam

The core problem is that for 50 yrs governments have not invested in increasing growth or infrastructure, their economic gains has almost all been given away in social enhancement to gain more votes in elections.

It's a problem all democracies face the need to win an election is first and foremost on all polititians agenda. Whether is more benefits or lower taxes there simply hasn't been money for growth, we are now at a stage where we are hopelessly behind on all modern technology.

Even today borrowing to increase real productivity in the economy is fine in my book, I have little confidence that it will be done with a GE in 2 yrs time give aways to voters will again get get priority.

If I might add my two-pennorth worth.

I think that although many posters might not say so, some will have degrees in economics or other related subjects which involved a reasonable understanding of economics - so many on threads such as these will have a good working knowledge of the different economic theories, how they have affected society and how they have brought changes over time, and more importantly how they will affect the future.

I think this should be accepted as read.

So could I make a request for less assumption about a persons knowledge or lack of, and taking each post at its face value and not try to second guess a persons knowledge of the subject.

If that makes sense?

MaizieD

Sorry, LemonJam why are you quoting this? Are you supporting me or backing up DAR?

MazieD “Do you recognise that the Thatcher model, which we continue to follow is essentially very different from it?”

The comparison was with the Nordic model, which is completely different from the Thatcher model.

I repeat the reason for my pos again:

"I feel I'd like to add that I also feel some of MaizieD's comments towards my posts are either sarcastic, impatient or condescending or perhaps a combination of all three - as she infers in her posts that she has a superior understanding of what I am posting about. Such an approach stifles debate. I sometimes reflect whether it is worth posting on economic matters as such threads increasingly become dominated between MaizieD and David49, with other posters seemingly batted away. I could be wrong but that's how it comes across on occasion. For example, I understand the Thatcher model is different from the economic comments I have put forward on this thread, in context of Burnham's recent comments. Yet MaizieD feels the need to condescendingly question me. Here is an example on this thread".....

Sorry, LemonJam why are you quoting this? Are you supporting me or backing up DAR?

MazieD “Do you recognise that the Thatcher model, which we continue to follow is essentially very different from it?”

The comparison was with the Nordic model, which is completely different from the Thatcher model.

DaisyAnneReturns

MaizieD

DaisyAnneReturns

I did exactly that before I wrote my post Maizie. I was very suprised with the view you put forward so, I copied what LemonJam and what you wrote over to an AI and simply asked what it thought of them factually. It's answer agreed with how I had read it. If that's not what you meant then perhaps you could have a second run at it?

It just shows that AI isn’t the be all and end all.

What is so very difficulty to understand about

You’re describing a model very close, if not identical, to the model Thatcher abandoned in the 1980s. ?

Critical, probably intended to be sarcastic with an element of frustration or impatience - why would I want to try and have that conversation Maizie?

I feel I'd like to add that I also feel some of MaizieD's comments towards my posts are either sarcastic, impatient or condescending or perhaps a combination of all three - as she infers in her posts that she has a superior understanding of what I am posting about. Such an approach stifles debate. I sometimes reflect whether it is worth posting on economic matters as such threads increasingly become dominated between MaizieD and David49, with other posters seemingly batted away. I could be wrong but that's how it comes across on occasion. For example, I understand the Thatcher model is different from the economic comments I have put forward on this thread, in context of Burnham's recent comments. Yet MaizieD feels the need to condescendingly question me. Here is an example on this thread:

MaizieD: 28/5 “I don't think you understand how all embracing and widely implemented the neoliberal, free market, small state ideology was (and still is). Brown did what was accepted economic 'truth' at the time. It was what was taught for economic degrees and what was needed to obtain employment as an economist. 

Even now it is the widely accepted model for running an economy. Brown cannot be blamed for following it. He wasn't even an economist, he had a degree in history”.

David49: “As you say it's still the economic model today and still it doesn't work so why are we slaves to it.”

Lemondrop: "There's no guarantee an alternative economic model would fare any better? That is, what economic model would fare better in the face of the same constraints, that have grown even more post Brexit as well as ever changing geopolitical forces…..Not all of the above risks and forces are entirely as a result of a Neoliberalism. But on the other hand alternative economic models may be better- Foundational Economy? A Wellbeing Economy?"

David49: "Excuses, excuses, excuses",

Lemondrop: Excuses no- the constraints and geo political forces exist. …..

*I’m with DAR that a wealth tax is a good first step to dealing with some of our issues in the UK- and closing the massive disparity gap between taxes on wealth and taxes on work*. I support strategic state intervention. I don't support the long years of austerity we have endured or the decimation of our public services and thats what needs to change. 

I look at some of the Nordic countries and how they balance some aspects of the capitalist, market based economy and pairs that with strong labour unions, robust welfare systems and progressive taxation, with good public services. That would be my preferred direction of travel.

MazieD “Do you recognise that the Thatcher model, which we continue to follow is essentially very different from it?”

MaizieD

DaisyAnneReturns

MaizieD

DaisyAnneReturns

I did exactly that before I wrote my post Maizie. I was very suprised with the view you put forward so, I copied what LemonJam and what you wrote over to an AI and simply asked what it thought of them factually. It's answer agreed with how I had read it. If that's not what you meant then perhaps you could have a second run at it?

It just shows that AI isn’t the be all and end all.

What is so very difficulty to understand about

You’re describing a model very close, if not identical, to the model Thatcher abandoned in the 1980s. ?

Critical, probably intended to be sarcastic with an element of frustration or impatience - why would I want to try and have that conversation Maizie?

I don't particularly want a conversation, DAR.

You said that I had made an incorrect statement.

I said that I hadn't.

Neither you or AI appear to be able to comprehend English so I reposted my original sentence which completely disproves your assertion.

That is the end as far as I am concerned.

You could have said that in a straight forward manner, pointing out the error. I could have then apologised. It's not a problem.

Gosh that is an interesting concept

“Encouraging the billionaires to use their wealth for the public good”

And

“Preventing accumulation in the first place”

nanna8

Do the very rich use a lot of offshore accounts to avoid paying tax? I know that used to happen a lot, don’t know if they can still do this.

I think that is getting more difficult for them now, but the fact remains that they are in a position to pay people to manage their wealth in a way that enables them to pay minimal tax. Which usually turns out to be a far smaller percentage of their total income than the percentage paid by ordinary people whose tax is mainly collected through PAYE, which they cannot avoid and through indirect taxation (VAT) on the goods and services they purchase; gain, they cannot avoid this,

DaisyAnneReturns

MaizieD

DaisyAnneReturns

I did exactly that before I wrote my post Maizie. I was very suprised with the view you put forward so, I copied what LemonJam and what you wrote over to an AI and simply asked what it thought of them factually. It's answer agreed with how I had read it. If that's not what you meant then perhaps you could have a second run at it?

It just shows that AI isn’t the be all and end all.

What is so very difficulty to understand about

You’re describing a model very close, if not identical, to the model Thatcher abandoned in the 1980s. ?

Critical, probably intended to be sarcastic with an element of frustration or impatience - why would I want to try and have that conversation Maizie?

I don't particularly want a conversation, DAR.

You said that I had made an incorrect statement.

I said that I hadn't.

Neither you or AI appear to be able to comprehend English so I reposted my original sentence which completely disproves your assertion.

That is the end as far as I am concerned.

nanna8

Do the very rich use a lot of offshore accounts to avoid paying tax? I know that used to happen a lot, don’t know if they can still do this.

Yes they do. So a shell/off shore company is set which accumulates an individuals wealth. There will certainly be more than one of these. The billionaire will draw down money from this company in the form of a “loan” - in practice no interest is charged and eventually the “debt” is written off.

Do you remember Rees Mogg - I think he had a “loan” of 12 million from a shell company that he had set up.

British Revenue have long considered this an “illegal” tax avoidance, but despite a couple of tries have yet to deal with this successfully. But now that the banks are exchanging information etc, I have no doubt they are working on it.

MaizieD

DaisyAnneReturns

I did exactly that before I wrote my post Maizie. I was very suprised with the view you put forward so, I copied what LemonJam and what you wrote over to an AI and simply asked what it thought of them factually. It's answer agreed with how I had read it. If that's not what you meant then perhaps you could have a second run at it?

It just shows that AI isn’t the be all and end all.

What is so very difficulty to understand about

You’re describing a model very close, if not identical, to the model Thatcher abandoned in the 1980s. ?

Critical, probably intended to be sarcastic with an element of frustration or impatience - why would I want to try and have that conversation Maizie?

Do the very rich use a lot of offshore accounts to avoid paying tax? I know that used to happen a lot, don’t know if they can still do this.

Of course all state supports contributes to GDP but still leaves a deficit it cannot return all of its cost because drugs supplies and overheads have to be paid as well as wages.

The fact remains that Nordic countries have more efficient economies and much lower borrowings

David49

Nordic states are not a good comparison, small population and an export surplus, they have invested far more in growth of course they have a better state support system.

Do you never stop to consider that a state support system puts money into circulation in the economy? That the money it puts into the economy contributes to growth? That the money it puts into the system contributes to the tax yield?

I doubt very much that even in the Nordic systems the state recoups all the money put into state support. It defies logic to assume that it does.

The only cost free money that citizens have is the money which comprises the deficit between what the state puts into the economy and what it takes out by way of taxation. Without that cost free money citizens would have to rely on private credit, with its associated cost in interest and the money supply would rapidly diminish.

Forget Norway they are way in front for all the reasons we know, look at Denmark they are far more productive as nation

Denmark pop 6m GDP per capital $88,000
UK pop 70m GDP per capital $68,000

The Danes have a much more productive economy

Nordic states are not a good comparison, small population and an export surplus, they have invested far more in growth of course they have a better state support system.

DaisyAnneReturns

I did exactly that before I wrote my post Maizie. I was very suprised with the view you put forward so, I copied what LemonJam and what you wrote over to an AI and simply asked what it thought of them factually. It's answer agreed with how I had read it. If that's not what you meant then perhaps you could have a second run at it?

It just shows that AI isn’t the be all and end all.

What is so very difficulty to understand about

You’re describing a model very close, if not identical, to the model Thatcher abandoned in the 1980s. ?