Uncertainly DOES play a role in interest rates as well as bond prices. I agree completely with the analysis but I would tweak the Rx just a bit.
A one-time tax rebate would be a regressive way to distribute the money back to taxpayers. And if debt relief is the goal, I am not sure a one time rebate would do much for that. When I first started working I eavesdropped on a conversation the head of my department was having with a colleague saying that when they were earning a good income it was easy to get credit anywhere but when you really needed it was when you were first starting out. “YES” I said to myself internally!
Older/wealthier individuals may not have debt that is a problem for them to manage but younger and less well off individuals certainly need the help. Plus there are people who cannot take on debt of virtually any kind because their incomes are so low plus no collateral.
So… I would take 25% of income tax receipts (including corporate taxation) and rebate that as a monthly payment that is subject to tax after the first 15000 or so. This would be much like the OAS now, and would be available to anyone filing a tax return.
Coupled with targeted spending on public housing projects and infrastructure hardening/upgrading this would be a winning strategy anywhere.
That's like mixing big industrial farms with small organic regenerative ones. They are both farms, but one is the largest source of climate change and the other type of farm sequesters carbon. Most seniors are much better off then their kids. But the ones without assets....god knows how they can even survive at all!
That's what I was thinking too. But unfortunately the reality is that it isn't as regressive as you might think. Many people with high net worths pay little income taxes. Many self employed also live very high lifestyles and have enviable assets, but avoid taxes that salaried people pay. Like your family farmer with 50 million in land and zero income, but spend a month in Hawaii every year and buy their kids houses. Good for them.
But yes, maybe a basic income because it's still to regressive for me.
Yes, the simple distinction is between people who work for a living and people who own for a living. If you own a huge piece of land, you don't have to work it at all. You can rent it.
Interesting analysis and proposal. These times of volatile politics can be a cause of volatile economics and certainly volatile greed. Perspective will drive political decisions/policy and given the current trends, it's likely not to be in favour of the everyday citizen but rather the benefit of corporations - which has been the driver of inflation.
I love this line of thinking. Makes sense to me, but I still want to see more. I definately agree that Milton Freidman was wrong again and that certainty will reduce inflation. How would this work with rising costs? Because I still think that climate change is going to hit hard on everything. We are sleepwalking. I guess it would help. Larry Summers says govt spending causes inflation, and he makes a good case. It's not certain that the tax break wouldn't create demand above supply. Again, give the money to those who really need it I think is less inflationary. We have to do something new. With the tech we have today we should almost be in a Star Trek society. But all the money has gone to the 1%. Is this a form of redistribution? Not really. Is Canada big enough to force foreign lenders to accept this or could they punish us? Probably not as it would hurt them the most.
Forgive me, but Larry Summers doesn't know shit. I should write an artcle about that. He doesn't know what he's talking about - actually, I've written an article about it in the context of Robert Reich. What they're saying makes no sense. If someone loses $20, and you replace it with $20, is it inflation? I submit that it is not. You are replacing *lost* money.
Inflation is from prices going up, and as Adam Smith wrote many years ago, men of trades seldom gather without talking about raising prices. Cartels and monopoly power. And we are dealing with cartels and monopoly power, who don't want competition or to have to follow the law - like oil and big tech.
Prices and inflation are because there is so much concentration that everything is a monopoly. So we're dealing with a lot of monopolies who are charging huge sums of money, much more than they are worth and these monopolists are trying to protect and entrench their own monopolies by eliminating competition and eliminating bargaining power, merging more, in the name of "efficiency" which is efficiency to capital and no one else.
The Canadian economy runs on something that, by law, is made only in Canada: Canadian currency. We do not need to go to other countries to get money to put people to work. If foreign investors want to invest, they have to buy Canadian dollars.
Uncertainly DOES play a role in interest rates as well as bond prices. I agree completely with the analysis but I would tweak the Rx just a bit.
A one-time tax rebate would be a regressive way to distribute the money back to taxpayers. And if debt relief is the goal, I am not sure a one time rebate would do much for that. When I first started working I eavesdropped on a conversation the head of my department was having with a colleague saying that when they were earning a good income it was easy to get credit anywhere but when you really needed it was when you were first starting out. “YES” I said to myself internally!
Older/wealthier individuals may not have debt that is a problem for them to manage but younger and less well off individuals certainly need the help. Plus there are people who cannot take on debt of virtually any kind because their incomes are so low plus no collateral.
So… I would take 25% of income tax receipts (including corporate taxation) and rebate that as a monthly payment that is subject to tax after the first 15000 or so. This would be much like the OAS now, and would be available to anyone filing a tax return.
Coupled with targeted spending on public housing projects and infrastructure hardening/upgrading this would be a winning strategy anywhere.
Older individuals are the fastest growing category of debt.
That's like mixing big industrial farms with small organic regenerative ones. They are both farms, but one is the largest source of climate change and the other type of farm sequesters carbon. Most seniors are much better off then their kids. But the ones without assets....god knows how they can even survive at all!
That's what I was thinking too. But unfortunately the reality is that it isn't as regressive as you might think. Many people with high net worths pay little income taxes. Many self employed also live very high lifestyles and have enviable assets, but avoid taxes that salaried people pay. Like your family farmer with 50 million in land and zero income, but spend a month in Hawaii every year and buy their kids houses. Good for them.
But yes, maybe a basic income because it's still to regressive for me.
Yes, the simple distinction is between people who work for a living and people who own for a living. If you own a huge piece of land, you don't have to work it at all. You can rent it.
This makes eminent sense on many levels.
Interesting analysis and proposal. These times of volatile politics can be a cause of volatile economics and certainly volatile greed. Perspective will drive political decisions/policy and given the current trends, it's likely not to be in favour of the everyday citizen but rather the benefit of corporations - which has been the driver of inflation.
I love this line of thinking. Makes sense to me, but I still want to see more. I definately agree that Milton Freidman was wrong again and that certainty will reduce inflation. How would this work with rising costs? Because I still think that climate change is going to hit hard on everything. We are sleepwalking. I guess it would help. Larry Summers says govt spending causes inflation, and he makes a good case. It's not certain that the tax break wouldn't create demand above supply. Again, give the money to those who really need it I think is less inflationary. We have to do something new. With the tech we have today we should almost be in a Star Trek society. But all the money has gone to the 1%. Is this a form of redistribution? Not really. Is Canada big enough to force foreign lenders to accept this or could they punish us? Probably not as it would hurt them the most.
Forgive me, but Larry Summers doesn't know shit. I should write an artcle about that. He doesn't know what he's talking about - actually, I've written an article about it in the context of Robert Reich. What they're saying makes no sense. If someone loses $20, and you replace it with $20, is it inflation? I submit that it is not. You are replacing *lost* money.
Inflation is from prices going up, and as Adam Smith wrote many years ago, men of trades seldom gather without talking about raising prices. Cartels and monopoly power. And we are dealing with cartels and monopoly power, who don't want competition or to have to follow the law - like oil and big tech.
Prices and inflation are because there is so much concentration that everything is a monopoly. So we're dealing with a lot of monopolies who are charging huge sums of money, much more than they are worth and these monopolists are trying to protect and entrench their own monopolies by eliminating competition and eliminating bargaining power, merging more, in the name of "efficiency" which is efficiency to capital and no one else.
The Canadian economy runs on something that, by law, is made only in Canada: Canadian currency. We do not need to go to other countries to get money to put people to work. If foreign investors want to invest, they have to buy Canadian dollars.