After the resounding commercial and critical success of Thomas Piketty’s book “Capital in the twenty-first century”, the author himself responded, in the form of an article in the latest release of Basic Income Studies, to critics and to proponents of Basic Income (BI). As Michael Howard puts it in the introductory paper of the referred edition of Basic Income Studies, “he is wary (…) of treating a cash transfer as a ’magic bullet’.”. However, Thomas Piketty has been a defender of progressive taxation and some forms of BI ever since 1997, particularly the negative income tax (NIT). Although he remains consistent with his prior views on the role of the welfare state, he supports “universal cash transfers for dependent children” and “basic income for all adults with insufficient market income.” Nevertheless despite disagreements, he views basic income as a valid subject of discussion.Bien — Basic Income Earth Network
Thomas Piketty further discusses his book “Capital in the twenty-first century” and extends relations to basic income
Andre Coelho
6 comments:
So Piketty supports a universal child credit and a means-tested BIG. I can go along with that.
I'm not keen on his resource tax. If the aim is to reduce consumption of something like carbon, I'd rather ration and regulate.
OT but relevant to economics, election year politics, and Beardsley Ruml: Canada's failed experiments with Corporate
tax cuts
"Instead of investing their enlarged earnings into growth-expanding industrial projects, Canada's corporate sector -- especially its largest firms -- have increasingly stockpiled cash on their balance sheet."
Ruml suggested that corporate taxes are passed onto consumers as higher prices. However Ruml also pointed out that, if there is insufficient competition to drive down prices, a cut in corporate taxes may result in a windfall to shareholders. The windfall may go to dividends, stock buybacks, executive bonuses, mergers & acquisitions, etc..
Who knew... it's obvious to everybody except economists.
Dan they are not going to invest if they dont see any sales growth potential...
It is not "build it and they will come..." empty buildings and capacity out there are manifest evidence of this...
They write "growth-expanding industrial projects,"
This is not industry's job; this is the government's job...
Govt marshalls public initiative first, then industry responds...
You have to look at Canada govt's top line...
rsp,
@Matt, agree that business investment is driven by demand.
Point of study was that there was no obvious public benefit to Canada's corporate tax cuts.
I'm not keen on his resource tax. If the aim is to reduce consumption of something like carbon, I'd rather ration and regulate.
In some cases, this might be the appropriate policy. I don't see it with carbon, given the stakes and urgency.
If all the people concerned about the supposed future taxation of grandchildren as a result of public borrowing which is nonsense), woke up and stated being concerned about the survival of their progeny, we might get some decisive action.
Post a Comment