Today the Toronto Star ran a story written by the Canadian Press about the IMF saying it's good for the economy of a country to tax the rich fairly. This really made my day and made me think that there might be hope for humanity after all.
How are conservatives and anti-tax idealogues going to defend themselves now that a study by the bloody IMF no less has shown that more wealth redistribution, higher taxes on the wealthy and a smaller income gap are highly beneficial to the long-term health of an economy? My only question is: how did it take the IMF so damn long to figure out something so freakin' obvious to any sane, logical human being?
Maybe this is the first step on the path back to more sensible, progressive, balanced economic plans that will get countries afloat again and make the bailout a thing o the past! Or am I just dreaming in technicolour?
Anyway, here is the CP article that was posted on the Toronto Star website (thestar.com):
How are conservatives and anti-tax idealogues going to defend themselves now that a study by the bloody IMF no less has shown that more wealth redistribution, higher taxes on the wealthy and a smaller income gap are highly beneficial to the long-term health of an economy? My only question is: how did it take the IMF so damn long to figure out something so freakin' obvious to any sane, logical human being?
Maybe this is the first step on the path back to more sensible, progressive, balanced economic plans that will get countries afloat again and make the bailout a thing o the past! Or am I just dreaming in technicolour?
Anyway, here is the CP article that was posted on the Toronto Star website (thestar.com):
Taxing the rich not bad for the economy finds IMF researchers
Study incorporates recently compiled
figures comparing data from a large number of countries and shows
lowering inequality boosts growth.
OTTAWA—A new paper by
researchers at the International Monetary Fund appears to debunk a tenet
of conservative economic ideology — that taxing the rich to give to the
poor is bad for the economy.
The paper by IMF researchers Jonathan Ostry, Andrew Berg and Charalambos Tsangarides will be applauded by politicians and economists who regard high levels of income inequality as not only a moral stain on society but also economically unsound.
Labelled as the first study to incorporate recently compiled figures comparing pre- and post-tax data from a large number of countries, the authors say there is convincing evidence that lower net inequality is good economics, boosting growth and leading to longer-lasting periods of expansion.
In the most
controversial finding, the study concludes that redistributing wealth,
largely through taxation, does not significantly impact growth unless
the intervention is extreme.
In fact, because redistributing wealth through taxation has the positive impact of reducing inequality, the overall affect on the economy is to boost growth, the researchers conclude.
“We find that higher inequality seems to lower growth. Redistribution, in contrast, has a tiny and statistically insignificant (slightly negative) effect,” the paper states.
“This implies that, rather than a trade-off, the average result across the sample is a win-win situation, in which redistribution has an overall pro-growth effect.”
While the paper is heavy on the economics, there is no mistaking the political implications in the findings.
In Canada, the Liberal party led by Justin Trudeau is set to make supporting the middle class a key plank in the upcoming election and the NDP has also stressed the importance of tackling income inequality.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservatives have boasted that tax cuts, particularly deep reductions in corporate taxation, are at least partly responsible for why the Canadian economy outperformed other G7 countries both during and after the 2008-09 recession.
In the Commons on Tuesday, Employment Minister Jason Kenney said the many tax cuts his government has introduced since 2006, including a two-percentage-point trim of the GST, has helped most Canadians.
Speaking on a Statistics Canada report showing net median family wealth had increased by 44.5 per cent since 2005, he added:
“It is no coincidence because, with the more than 160 tax cuts by this government, Canadian families, on average, have seen their after-tax disposable income increase by 10 per cent across all income categories. We are continuing to lead the world on economic growth and opportunity for working families.”
The authors concede that their conclusions tend to contradict some well-accepted orthodoxy, which holds that taxation is a job killer.
But they say that many previous studies failed to make a distinction between pre-tax inequality and post-tax inequality, and so often compared apples to oranges, among other shortcomings.
The data they looked at showed almost no negative impact from redistribution policies and that economies where incomes are more equally distributed tend to grow faster and have growth cycles that last longer.
Meanwhile, they say the data is not crystal clear that even large redistributions have a direct negative impact, although “from history and first principles . . . after some point redistribution will be destructive of growth.”
Still, they also stop short of saying their conclusions definitively settle the issue, acknowledging it is a complex area of economic theory with many variables at play and a scarcity of hard data.
Instead, they urge more rigorous study and say their findings “highlight the urgency of this agenda.”
The Washington-based institution released the study Wednesday morning but, perhaps due to the controversial nature of the conclusions, calls it a “staff discussion note” that does “not necessarily” represent the IMF views or policy. It was authorized for distribution by Olivier Blanchard, the IMF’s chief economist.
