No, not really

And third, the money could be cancelled by way of tax if it is necessary to do so to control inflation. But this is possible because the spend will become someone’s income. And they will be taxed on it. And when they spend the net proceeds after tax the recipient of that spending will also be taxed, and so on, until the tax is recovered. So the spend pays for itself, eventually. But along the way it will create economic growth, redistribute income and wealth in society and reduce hardship. And all by simply letting money flow from the government and back to it, in due course.

If this were true then there would be no outstanding stock of debt from previous government spending. Yet there’s getting on for a couple of trillion of such government debt. Thus the argument don’t work, eh?

Or, alternatively, we could say that we’ve had inflation in the past, therefore government hasn’t been taxing enough. But then that would be to accuse the past of not enough austerity. Possibly an argument that Snippa wouldn’t agree with.

9 comments on “No, not really

  1. Possibly an argument that Snippa wouldn’t agree with.

    Depends on the mood. Capt. Potato is the Vicky Pollard of economics.

  2. OK, building on this I have a new proposal. The state prints as much money as they like and keeps it. The rest of us achieve our financial objectives by barter, possibly using some sort of token to represent barterable goods and services.

  3. Bill Hughes comments on TRUK.

    “Whether the British public will see the light in 5 years time is a moot point after another 5 years of far right ranting from the mass media including the BBC.”

    The BBC is now far right.

    It’s impossible to reason with fvckwits like this. The only compassionate solution is to administer chemicals to manage the mental health problems. Just how many times was poor Bill dropped on his head by his parents one wonders.

  4. the money could be cancelled by way of tax if it is necessary to do so to control inflation. But this is possible because the spend will become someone’s income. And they will be taxed on it. And when they spend the net proceeds after tax the recipient of that spending will also be taxed, and so on, until the tax is recovered.

    But they will be taxed before they can spend the income, so what’s the point?

  5. Good to see his inane wibbling about the chief rabbi. I would have thought as a leading tax and economics researcher for hire he’d have the awareness to know what’s worth expressing an opinion about and what isn’t. So that people can be sure they’re paying for credibility. Rather than just hiring some pompous canvasser with no filter.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.