1- To increase the progressivity of the tax system, in particular for high and very high incomes. This should happen in a coordinated way to avoid excessive movement of highly-skilled workers.
Everybody must raise their taxes so that none of the rich decide to run away.
Paragraph 2 is also worth a look, if not a laff.
It talks about “tax heavens” which is as Freudian a slip as one is likely to see from an economist!
I a worldwide cartel the productive might just decide to work less.
That’ll be good for the economy, not.
Sating envious lefties won’t help the economy.
Every time Stiglitz opens his mouth he sets economics back about 300 years.
And this yahoo got a Nobel?
No, Pamela, he got one of the pretendy Nobels funded by the Swedish Central Bank.
Do highly skilled workers have high incomes in the UK? All of them ?
John Malpas: no, of course they don’t. You can be a highly skilled member of the Amalgamated Union of Bakelite Knob-Twirlers and be a drug on the market. What Stiglitz means, no doubt, is ‘workers with high marginal productivity’. And if your productivity is derived from a footloose industry, then you can indeed bugger off to sunnier climes. God knows I did.
Paul Krugman also has a Nobel. The bar has been lowered, massively.
depressing.
Jonathan Pearce:
Hell, reading that paper I thought Krugman had actually written it.
Gah!
anticitizenone: “I a worldwide cartel the productive might just decide to work less.”
And, possibly more importantly, they may decide never to become productive.
Many will think why do a degree if you can’t get paid more afterwards.