Rather than bore extensively with what the flapheads at the Progressive Economy Forum are telling us about the party manifestos – we can guess anyway, Greens good, Labour Great! – just the one little extract:
The tax dimension of it (and it’s always an aspect) also makes sense. To the
extent that tax is needed the aim is threefold. Wealth is taxed more, as it is
dramatically undertaxed now. Labour is right to tax it more. The same is true
of corporation tax, where Labour’s proposed unitary tax base for
international taxation will lead the world, whilst the increase in rates will
simply bring the UK back into line with the world. No one is actually going to
change their behaviour as a result of either reform.
Look, to say that you don’t like neoliberal economics is fair enough. Of course, to say so makes you a bad person and a dullard but other than that it’s a reasonable enough statement.
To say that you’ve problems with neoclassical economics is a bit more difficult to justify but even then there are times when a classical analysis works.
But to insist that economics doesn’t happen at the the edges, to reject the Marginalist Revolution, is to step over the line into being a complete addlepate.
We might be able to say that not enough people will change their behaviour to avoid the taxation. We could try to contort into saying that the net balance will be beneficial. But the statement that no one will change their behaviour just as we’ve changed their incentives?
Dunderheads. Or, given that this section is written by Richard Murphy, just what we should be expecting.