Thirdly, those adopting this approach also necessarily make another assumption, which is that government when making use of one of the powers that ultimately evidences its existence, which is the right to impose taxation, must not use political choice when doing so, but must instead reflect market outcomes and presume they are efficient, even though it is glaring obvious that the conditions for such efficiency have never, will never and can never exist. That decision is not, then, rational on their part. It is, instead, another profoundly political judgement that suggests that they do not believe that the government has the right to reallocate resources within a society, with which I profoundly disagree.
It is, I suggest, absolutely vital to understand these foundations of the proposal that Dan Neidle is making because doing so justifies everything that I have suggested about them, which is that they are neoliberal and have every intention of maintaining the existing power structure within society, which is so deeply inequitable. There can, therefore, be no possible justification for the use of these proposals by any government that is concerned with the population of the UK and for a fair allocation of resources within it. They should, instead, be dismissed as the profoundly right-wing dogmatic proposal that they represent, which has the sole purpose of perpetuating existing power and economic and political structures within our society, which is the allegation I have laid against Dan for promoting them.
If you want tax justice, reduced inequality, sound logic, or reasoned argument, Dan Neidle is not the person whose tax policy proposals you need to consider.
Bit of a word salad but that’s Our Spud.
Of the founding principles of optimal taxation that he’s so against there’s this, which he actually quotes:
The optimal extent of redistribution rises with wage inequality;
That is, there *should be* redistribution from the market allocation of incomes and there should be more of it dependent upon how unequal that market distribution is.
Far from saying there should be no such redistribution the base ideas of optimal taxation insist upon it.
‘Eee’s a one but a one what? Illiterate? Idiot? Twat?
I have finally found a use for LLMs: Making Ritchie’s drivel readable:
The quote criticizes Dan Neidle’s tax policy proposals from a perspective that opposes neoliberal ideologies. Here is a simplified summary:
1) The criticism argues that Neidle’s approach assumes taxes should reflect market outcomes and not involve political choices, despite market efficiency being unrealistic.
2) This assumption is seen as a political judgment that undermines the government’s role in reallocating resources to achieve fairness.
3) The critic believes Neidle’s proposals are neoliberal, aimed at maintaining existing power and economic inequalities.
4) They argue that these proposals are not suitable for a government concerned with fairness and reducing inequality in the UK.
5) The critic concludes that for genuine tax justice, reduced inequality, and sound logic, one should not consider Neidle’s tax policy proposals.
The LLM certainly removes the puffed up, pompous bollocks, but that done the residue is revealed for the trite, incoherent crap that it is.
Which rather shows that the whole point of writing the original was as a platform for “moral” blustering, or virtue signalling as it is known nowadays. Spud is merely an incoherent windbag. I take no credit for the originality of this observation.
He certainly is stupid, ignorant, and nasty but I suspect he’s also mentally ill.
Tell me, when people sneer about his sending in a ringer to take his accountancy exams is this a known fact or a playful case of vulgar abuse?
“…but must instead reflect market outcomes and presume they are efficient, even though it is glaring obvious that the conditions for such efficiency have never, will never and can never exist. That decision is not, then, rational on their part. It is, instead, another profoundly political judgement that suggests that they do not believe that the government has the right to reallocate resources within a society”.
I’ve said it here before, and I’ll say it again. He doesn’t understand the difference between the first and second welfare theorems of economics, and he also doesn’t understand what is meant by Pareto efficient. “Welfare economics is associated with two main theorems. The first is that competitive markets yield Pareto efficient outcomes. The second is that social welfare can be maximized at an equilibrium with a suitable level of redistribution”.
Of course the pure assumptions of these theorems don’t hold – they never do in theoretical economics. The question the First Theorem does, though, reasonably pose is “Can a government allocate resources more efficiently (as opposed to more equitably) than markets do?”. I think there will be some agreement on that amongst this readership. The Second Theorem absolutely stresses the centrality of government redistribution – no sensible economist argues otherwise (it is a “how much”, not “right to/no right to”, question).
Mere va…..
Anything that involves politicians being given the right to reallocate resources within a society just means pissing away money on stupid schemes.
“As a result of these comments, and out of curiosity, I went back to read the arguments in the Mirrlees review, published by the Institute for Fiscal Studies in 2011, on why they thought that this was appropriate. I have not revisited the issue for a while, although I recall not making myself very popular with my interventions at its launch event.”
Was this the event where he was asked to leave for tweeting critically live while the event was taking place?
“I recall not making myself very popular”
A recollection which must apply to just about everything he does.
Andrew C
I’m sure someone so adept at denying objective reality as Murphy is capable of coming to an accommodation with that.
My LLM Summaries the piece as a whole thus:
The document critiques Dan Neidle’s tax proposals, which suggest exempting the normal rate of return on capital from taxation. This idea has garnered interest, particularly among neoliberal commentators who find it appropriate. The author revisits the Mirrlees Review from 2011, which supports this approach, arguing that taxing the normal return on savings distorts lifetime consumption and labor supply. The review suggests that a consumption tax, unlike a comprehensive income tax, avoids such distortions by maintaining neutrality in consumption timing.
The document highlights that economic theory does not provide a clear recommendation on optimal tax design, leading the authors to rely on concepts like tax neutrality. They acknowledge the complexity of individual saving behaviors and suggest starting from a neutrality benchmark to explore deviations.
The author criticizes this approach, arguing that it assumes markets are efficient and should not be interfered with, despite lacking evidence and ignoring the negative outcomes of such assumptions, like climate change. The critique extends to the political implications, suggesting that these proposals perpetuate existing power structures and are biased rather than neutral.
The document references a paper by economists like Greg Mankiw, which outlines principles of optimal tax theory, including the idea that capital income should be untaxed. The author argues that these principles reflect a political judgment that current resource allocations are just, despite being manifestly unfair.
The critique concludes that Neidle’s proposals are neoliberal, aiming to maintain inequitable power structures. The author argues against their adoption by any government concerned with fair resource allocation, labeling them as right-wing and dogmatic. The document suggests that for tax justice and reduced inequality, Neidle’s proposals should not be considered.
It’s more measured then I would be of course, but to quote ‘Bachman Turner Overdrive’ – ‘You ain’t seen nuthin ‘yet’
Left leaning discussions on taxation often seem to be muddled by their overriding desire to put equality center stage. I have even seen them argue that the concept of the Laffer curve has been disproven because it does not promote equality.
Jeez, that’s like rejecting the Water Cycle because it doesn’t promote equality.
Andrew C
Be careful – this is the man who said ‘Ne Pasaran’ to Elon Musk… They’re considering him for the George Cross I hear…