Nope, Ritchie still doesn\’t get economics

I have claimed that reducing the tax gap is fiscal austerity. Ritchie told me to shut up because I don\’t understand because I\’m a neoliberal babyeater who has studied economics.

From Ritchie\’s latest report:

If only we had some or most of the tax not collected as a result of the tax avoidance, tax evasion and tax paid late that makes up the tax gap, then not only would we not need to borrow as much…

There you have it. Ritchie wants to increase the tax take so as to reduce the deficit. This really is fiscal austerity.

But5 Ritchie doesn\’t understand this, does he?

2 thoughts on “Nope, Ritchie still doesn\’t get economics”

  1. No it bloody isn’t. The word austerity does not mean “reducing the deficit” it means reducing expenditure, quite possibly with very little impact on the deficit depending on size of negative multiplier. Why are you so obtuse on this topic?

    Tim adds: I use the words austerity and fiscal contraction interchangeably. Perhaps I shouldn’t: but you agree with me that what Ritchie is intending is very definitely fiscal contraction?

  2. No you shouldn’t. One is a policy the other is an outcome. For sure I agree he is proposing fiscal contractions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *