In an op-ed published on Thursday in the New York Times, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and his Roosevelt Institute colleague Kitty Richards argue that rather than wait for Congress to provide financial aid to deal with the economic consequences of the coronavirus pandemic, state and local governments should increase taxes on "their wealthiest residents" to "bolster their local economies" and meet pressing needs or else Americans will be forced to suffer an "unacceptable alternative" characterized by socially-damaging austerity and a long-lasting recession.Common Dreams
Richards and Stiglitz make the case that "the economic impact of the pandemic is daunting, and it would be better for the federal government to step in." According to the pair of economists, the federal government—unencumbered by balanced budget rules hampering many states—"could solve the problem tomorrow by providing fiscal relief to states and localities, like the $1 trillion provided by the HEROES Act that passed the House in May" before languishing on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) desk.
Nevertheless, people across the U.S. are "living through a catastrophe" and need assistance right now, the economists write. They "cannot afford for their state and local leaders to abdicate responsibility." ...
Either [States and Municipalities] Raise Taxes on Wealthy to Fund Recovery or Expect Years of 'Grinding Recession,' Argues Nobel Prize-Winning Economist
Joseph Stiglitz and Kitty Richards
17 comments:
Very well, grinding recession it shall be...
Is this where political types rediscover that States can only really tax land and property because everything else has a tendency to move.
And retirees move Neil and take their pensions with them...
Property taxes in NJ and N.Y. paying for greens fees in tax free Florida...
They can’t move unless they sell their property, probably to someone younger who will be around awhile, which just means someone else is paying the property tax. And as more people move to Florida the property there gets more expensive. Florida has no state income taxes but they do have property taxes.
Public services are less than otherwise.... current revenues have to be diverted to make up pension fund shortfalls... current public services take the hit...
You end up paying a lot of taxes for little local public services...
You lose transaction tax revenues when your state pension retirees move out... they should clobber municipal retirees with taxes if they take their pensions out of state...
Federal "revenue" sharing with States, cities, etc. is a proper solution.
Note this is superior to a job guarantee because only the best workers need be hired; i.e. we don't want to gum up government with incompetence, the lazy, the corrupt, etc. but have the best governments possible.
Revenue sharing is a huge part of puzzle, agreed AA.
Revenue sharing with states was a huge part of Warren Moslers platform when he ran for federal office. Mosler is who I first got exposure to MMT through back in 2007/8 and he has made that point often
The Job Guarantee does revenue sharing very effectively. And ensures that people have something to do that is of benefit to their local community.
And it adjusts completely automatically as the cycle shifts.
The Job Guarantee does revenue sharing very effectively. NeilW
Baloney. The primary purpose of a job guarantee is to consume time, not accomplish work effectively.
And it adjusts completely automatically as the cycle shifts. ibid
So could a Citizen's Dividend and conventional revenue sharing based on price deflation or the expectation thereof.
So a job guarantee is sadistically wasteful and will simply discredit fiat creation for the general welfare. Is that the purpose? So that ALL fiat creation shall be for the filthy usury cartel?
Labeling fiscal transfers from the Federal gov't to the state and local levels "Revenue sharing" after arguing for years that the federal gov't creates it's money sounds particularly harmful to the overall argument...
That's why I put "revenue" in quotes in my first comment.
“The primary purpose of a job guarantee is to consume time, not accomplish work effectively.“
Only in your perverted job guarantee version. You make things up and then ascribe it to a job guarantee. It’s dishonest and God knows it.
The primary purpose of MMT's Job Guarantee is to serve as a buffer of labor to keep private sector wages stable.
That purpose would be defeated if the time of the "workers" were not consumed by the Job Guarantee and they were thus free to work for themselves or the private sector for lower wages.
So what's very important for MMT's Job Guarantee is that the workers may not work for themselves or anyone else during their shifts - NOT that they accomplish any positive or even non-negative work.
“ or anyone else during their shifts”
Which once again is your own made up perverted version. A job guarantee can very well be for the society’s benefit which is to work for others including your own benefit.
God is not impressed by your dishonesty.
Having a job is doing what your boss tells you - whether good, bad or indifferent.
Btw, my God is the God of the Bible. So if you wish to correct me, you'd necessarily need to know it.
Performing work within a job guarantee is creating REAL value. It can be REAL value for other people and oneself at the same time.
BTW your God don’t like dishonesty either. And I didn’t need to know about your God in this thread. You’ve already said it a gazillion times before.
Wage Slavery on Labor Day, from Ian Welsh
Post a Comment