The beauty of a Green New Deal is that it would pay for itself: Governments around the world don’t need to raise taxes in order to t***sform their economies and avert climate disaster...

Kevyn

Governments around the world don’t need to raise taxes in order to t***sform their economies and avert climate disaster

In September 2007, as credit was “crunched” and the financial crisis began to unfold, a group of economists and environmentalists, including the future Green party MP Caroline Lucas, met regularly in my small London flat. Supping on comfort food and wine, we argued furiously while drafting a plan we hoped would t***sform the economy and protect the ecosystem. We called it the Green New Deal. Little did we know that the ideas we seeded then would be adopted by a shooting star of the Democratic party, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, as part of her bid for a New York congressional seat in 2018.

Fast forward to 2019 and the Green New Deal is now at the centre of the 2020 US p**********l campaign. Bernie Sanders last week declared the climate crisis a national emergency and launched his version of the deal – a $16.3 trillion plan that includes massive investment in renewable energy, green infrastructure for climate resilience and money for research.

Sanders is vague about his financing plans. He suggests that cuts in military spending could generate cash, but also proposes a rise in tax for big corporations. These are welcome proposals, but our group has one quibble. Big t***sformational projects are not financed from taxation. Kennedy’s moonshot wasn’t, nor is Britain’s HS2 rail project. Suggesting that the deal can be paid for through tax (even from big corporations) will rightly raise suspicions. Ordinary taxpayers will assume – as they did during the US debate about inheritance tax (reframed by the right as “death taxes”) – that the burden of such a carbon levy will fall instead on their shoulders.

So where should the money come from? There are fundamentally only two sources of financing. The first is borrowing (credit). This is achieved by applying for a loan, or issuing a bond. The second is existing savings.

To raise the money for a green deal, governments would have to draw on their equivalent of a giant credit card, but would also be able to take advantage of investment by savers. Thankfully, the creation of millions of jobs will generate the income and tax revenues needed to repay any borrowing. As Sanders argues, the whole thing will pay for itself.

First, the borrowing: credit issued by a commercial bank, as we all know from spending on our credit cards, does not draw on our existing deposits or savings. Instead it is a promise to pay in the future. OECD governments (backed by millions of taxpayers) are the most trusted borrowers, which is why their promises (bonds) are in such demand. Savings, by contrast, already exist – in bank deposits and savings accounts.

When a government borrows, as it has for financing HS2, that leads to investment and the creation of paid jobs in public and private sectors, and to private sector profits. Both employment income and profits generate tax revenues. Tax revenues are, therefore, a consequence of spending or investment – and can be used to pay back the borrowing. They need not be used directly to finance that investment.

During the second world war commercial banks provided credit to the government in the form of Treasury deposit receipts. They could do so again. But the government also has its own bank, the Bank of England, which issues credit, too (currently known as quantitative easing, or QE), and could use this to purchase government bonds.

To appeal to savers, the government could issue bonds to be repaid over different time periods – short, medium or long-term. These would attract pension funds and insurance companies, but also different kinds of individual savers. They would be able to invest their money in t***sforming the economy away from f****l f**ls, while receiving a regular income in the form of interest. For this to happen, governments would have to be “in the driving seat” when it comes to issuing bonds. Currently they’re more passive – relying almost entirely on demand from private capital markets.

As you can see, this system of financing is entirely doable. However, to succeed, our plan demands a decisive rupture from the neoliberal consensus of pairing expansionary monetary policy (QE) with contractionary fiscal policy (austerity).

The original Green New Deal group continues to meet, to argue, to indulge in good food and wine, and to plot the defeat of that consensus. Later this week, Caroline Lucas, together with Clive Lewis MP, will launch a bill embracing key principles of the plan. From small beginnings, a great change could soon be on its way.

• Ann Pettifor is the author of The Case for the Green New Deal, published by Verso

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Sorry... Perhaps I am missing something...Not a big fan of accounting...But in the above mentioned scenario is it not still the tax payer's money that is being used?

doggie

Excuse me. In the mean time who is paying for the 20 trillion debt we have now?

Iliamna1

Kevyn wrote:

Governments around the world don’t need to raise taxes in order to t***sform their economies and avert climate disaster

In September 2007, as credit was “crunched” and the financial crisis began to unfold, a group of economists and environmentalists, including the future Green party MP Caroline Lucas, met regularly in my small London flat. Supping on comfort food and wine, we argued furiously while drafting a plan we hoped would t***sform the economy and protect the ecosystem. We called it the Green New Deal. Little did we know that the ideas we seeded then would be adopted by a shooting star of the Democratic party, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, as part of her bid for a New York congressional seat in 2018.

Fast forward to 2019 and the Green New Deal is now at the centre of the 2020 US p**********l campaign. Bernie Sanders last week declared the climate crisis a national emergency and launched his version of the deal – a $16.3 trillion plan that includes massive investment in renewable energy, green infrastructure for climate resilience and money for research.

Sanders is vague about his financing plans. He suggests that cuts in military spending could generate cash, but also proposes a rise in tax for big corporations. These are welcome proposals, but our group has one quibble. Big t***sformational projects are not financed from taxation. Kennedy’s moonshot wasn’t, nor is Britain’s HS2 rail project. Suggesting that the deal can be paid for through tax (even from big corporations) will rightly raise suspicions. Ordinary taxpayers will assume – as they did during the US debate about inheritance tax (reframed by the right as “death taxes”) – that the burden of such a carbon levy will fall instead on their shoulders.

So where should the money come from? There are fundamentally only two sources of financing. The first is borrowing (credit). This is achieved by applying for a loan, or issuing a bond. The second is existing savings.

To raise the money for a green deal, governments would have to draw on their equivalent of a giant credit card, but would also be able to take advantage of investment by savers. Thankfully, the creation of millions of jobs will generate the income and tax revenues needed to repay any borrowing. As Sanders argues, the whole thing will pay for itself.

First, the borrowing: credit issued by a commercial bank, as we all know from spending on our credit cards, does not draw on our existing deposits or savings. Instead it is a promise to pay in the future. OECD governments (backed by millions of taxpayers) are the most trusted borrowers, which is why their promises (bonds) are in such demand. Savings, by contrast, already exist – in bank deposits and savings accounts.

When a government borrows, as it has for financing HS2, that leads to investment and the creation of paid jobs in public and private sectors, and to private sector profits. Both employment income and profits generate tax revenues. Tax revenues are, therefore, a consequence of spending or investment – and can be used to pay back the borrowing. They need not be used directly to finance that investment.

During the second world war commercial banks provided credit to the government in the form of Treasury deposit receipts. They could do so again. But the government also has its own bank, the Bank of England, which issues credit, too (currently known as quantitative easing, or QE), and could use this to purchase government bonds.

To appeal to savers, the government could issue bonds to be repaid over different time periods – short, medium or long-term. These would attract pension funds and insurance companies, but also different kinds of individual savers. They would be able to invest their money in t***sforming the economy away from f****l f**ls, while receiving a regular income in the form of interest. For this to happen, governments would have to be “in the driving seat” when it comes to issuing bonds. Currently they’re more passive – relying almost entirely on demand from private capital markets.

As you can see, this system of financing is entirely doable. However, to succeed, our plan demands a decisive rupture from the neoliberal consensus of pairing expansionary monetary policy (QE) with contractionary fiscal policy (austerity).

The original Green New Deal group continues to meet, to argue, to indulge in good food and wine, and to plot the defeat of that consensus. Later this week, Caroline Lucas, together with Clive Lewis MP, will launch a bill embracing key principles of the plan. From small beginnings, a great change could soon be on its way.

• Ann Pettifor is the author of The Case for the Green New Deal, published by Verso

Governments around the world don’t need to raise t... (show quote)

Having read through that twice, I can only ask . . . do you really believe what you just posted?

jim_shipley

Since the majority of Democrats pay no federal tax have have little savings they will not pay anything for their ultra expensive new plan as usual.

Rose42

It won’t pay for itself. Its going to cost us a lot. This article is nonsense.

bestpal38 Loc: Cedar City, Utah

Iliamna1 wrote:

Having read through that twice, I can only ask . . . do you really believe what you just posted?

No, he copied, and pasted, and noticed it was pro liberal nonsense, so he posted it. Probably didn't even read it.

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

The Political Fraud Of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's 'Green New ...

https://popularresistance.org › the-political-fraud-of-alexandria-ocasio-cort...
Nov 25, 2018 - Above and below: The Green New Deal logo from Green Party Watch. ... Nine Democrats have already put their names to the proposal, including Rashida Tlaib, who like Ocasio-Cortez is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. ... The document, as with Ocasio-Cortez’s politics, is ...
UTTER FRAUD OF GREEN NEW DEAL: What Today's ...

https://larouchepub.com › other › 4615-utter_fraud_of_green_new_deal
Apr 19, 2019 - UTTER FRAUD OF GREEN NEW DEAL. What Today's Democrats Could Learn from JFK and Lyndon LaRouche. by Harley Schlanger.
Fear and Loathing of the Green New Deal | The New Republic

https://newrepublic.com › article › fear-loathing-green-new-deal
May 29, 2019 - The Green New Deal, we are told, is socialism incarnate and just plain .... The stock market crash of 1929 had exposed financial fraud on a ...
Tammy Bruce: 'New Green Deal' = New Green H**x -- Dems ...

https://www.foxnews.com › opinion › tammy-bruce-new-green-deal-new-gr...
Feb 7, 2019 - Here's a scoop for you: The so-called “Green New Deal,” onto which 70 ... the Democratic Party is promoting a fraud-work quilt promising a cure ...
The Fraud of The Green New Deal - YouTube

https://www.youtube.com › watch
Feb 8, 2019 - With the release of the so-called Green New Deal yesterday, we need only look to the economic disaster now facing Germany to see what such ...
How the First “Green New Deal” Flopped | The Heritage ...

https://www.heritage.org › environment › commentary › how-the-first-gre...
Mar 28, 2019 - Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal has been widely ridiculed for ... There was much more green fraud and waste uncovered, but the ...
The 'sham' of Green New Deal is its true intent: Advancing ...

https://thehill.com › opinion › energy-environment › 436320-the-sham-of...
Mar 29, 2019 - The bill's democratic socialist sponsor apparently saw the Green New Deal as a chance to t***sform the economy.
The Climate Counter-Offensive: Secrecy, Deception and ...

https://www.counterpunch.org › 2019/06/14 › the-climate-counter-offensi...
Jun 14, 2019 - Disarming The Green New Deal. It is within this context of 70 long years of secrecy, special legal exemptions, deception, fraud, lies by omission ...
Green New Deal Is Neither New, Nor A Deal; It's A ...

https://naturalgasnow.org › green-new-deal-is-neither-new-nor-a-deal-its-a...
Dec 20, 2018 - Bill McKibben and Van Jones are pushing a new s**m called the Green New Deal and are using the super-flaky Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as ...

read these articles and you will see how this green new deal s**m is much like so many other Marxist Socialist lies.
Worth your time so you don't fall into the socialist trap.

Big Kahuna

Kevyn wrote:

Governments around the world don’t need to raise taxes in order to t***sform their economies and avert climate disaster

In September 2007, as credit was “crunched” and the financial crisis began to unfold, a group of economists and environmentalists, including the future Green party MP Caroline Lucas, met regularly in my small London flat. Supping on comfort food and wine, we argued furiously while drafting a plan we hoped would t***sform the economy and protect the ecosystem. We called it the Green New Deal. Little did we know that the ideas we seeded then would be adopted by a shooting star of the Democratic party, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, as part of her bid for a New York congressional seat in 2018.

Fast forward to 2019 and the Green New Deal is now at the centre of the 2020 US p**********l campaign. Bernie Sanders last week declared the climate crisis a national emergency and launched his version of the deal – a $16.3 trillion plan that includes massive investment in renewable energy, green infrastructure for climate resilience and money for research.

Sanders is vague about his financing plans. He suggests that cuts in military spending could generate cash, but also proposes a rise in tax for big corporations. These are welcome proposals, but our group has one quibble. Big t***sformational projects are not financed from taxation. Kennedy’s moonshot wasn’t, nor is Britain’s HS2 rail project. Suggesting that the deal can be paid for through tax (even from big corporations) will rightly raise suspicions. Ordinary taxpayers will assume – as they did during the US debate about inheritance tax (reframed by the right as “death taxes”) – that the burden of such a carbon levy will fall instead on their shoulders.

So where should the money come from? There are fundamentally only two sources of financing. The first is borrowing (credit). This is achieved by applying for a loan, or issuing a bond. The second is existing savings.

To raise the money for a green deal, governments would have to draw on their equivalent of a giant credit card, but would also be able to take advantage of investment by savers. Thankfully, the creation of millions of jobs will generate the income and tax revenues needed to repay any borrowing. As Sanders argues, the whole thing will pay for itself.

First, the borrowing: credit issued by a commercial bank, as we all know from spending on our credit cards, does not draw on our existing deposits or savings. Instead it is a promise to pay in the future. OECD governments (backed by millions of taxpayers) are the most trusted borrowers, which is why their promises (bonds) are in such demand. Savings, by contrast, already exist – in bank deposits and savings accounts.

When a government borrows, as it has for financing HS2, that leads to investment and the creation of paid jobs in public and private sectors, and to private sector profits. Both employment income and profits generate tax revenues. Tax revenues are, therefore, a consequence of spending or investment – and can be used to pay back the borrowing. They need not be used directly to finance that investment.

During the second world war commercial banks provided credit to the government in the form of Treasury deposit receipts. They could do so again. But the government also has its own bank, the Bank of England, which issues credit, too (currently known as quantitative easing, or QE), and could use this to purchase government bonds.

To appeal to savers, the government could issue bonds to be repaid over different time periods – short, medium or long-term. These would attract pension funds and insurance companies, but also different kinds of individual savers. They would be able to invest their money in t***sforming the economy away from f****l f**ls, while receiving a regular income in the form of interest. For this to happen, governments would have to be “in the driving seat” when it comes to issuing bonds. Currently they’re more passive – relying almost entirely on demand from private capital markets.

As you can see, this system of financing is entirely doable. However, to succeed, our plan demands a decisive rupture from the neoliberal consensus of pairing expansionary monetary policy (QE) with contractionary fiscal policy (austerity).

The original Green New Deal group continues to meet, to argue, to indulge in good food and wine, and to plot the defeat of that consensus. Later this week, Caroline Lucas, together with Clive Lewis MP, will launch a bill embracing key principles of the plan. From small beginnings, a great change could soon be on its way.

• Ann Pettifor is the author of The Case for the Green New Deal, published by Verso

Governments around the world don’t need to raise t... (show quote)

AOC is not a rising star but a falling star. We have heard enough lies from corrupt l*****t leaders (ovommit for one), who promise us that we can keep our doctors, our insurance plan and have more money in our pockets if we pass their corrupt plans. The Green deal is just another h**x to fleece the American taxpayer of their hard earned money. Who needs the Green deal anyway, the Earth is finished in 10 years now and counting!!

Tug484

Iliamna1 wrote:

Having read through that twice, I can only ask . . . do you really believe what you just posted?

Confusing to me.

Big dog

Iliamna1 wrote:

Having read through that twice, I can only ask . . . do you really believe what you just posted?

Pretty sure kevyn has a brain tumor 🤔

JoyV

Canuckus Deploracus wrote:

Sorry... Perhaps I am missing something...Not a big fan of accounting...But in the above mentioned scenario is it not still the tax payer's money that is being used?

You asked the same question in my mind when I read this.

crazylibertarian Loc: Florida by way of New York & Rhode Island

Kevyn wrote:

Governments around the world don’t need to raise taxes in order to t***sform their economies and avert climate disaster

In September 2007, as credit was “crunched” and the financial crisis began to unfold, a group of economists and environmentalists, including the future Green party MP Caroline Lucas, met regularly in my small London flat. Supping on comfort food and wine, we argued furiously while drafting a plan we hoped would t***sform the economy and protect the ecosystem. We called it the Green New Deal. Little did we know that the ideas we seeded then would be adopted by a shooting star of the Democratic party, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, as part of her bid for a New York congressional seat in 2018.

Fast forward to 2019 and the Green New Deal is now at the centre of the 2020 US p**********l campaign. Bernie Sanders last week declared the climate crisis a national emergency and launched his version of the deal – a $16.3 trillion plan that includes massive investment in renewable energy, green infrastructure for climate resilience and money for research.

Sanders is vague about his financing plans. He suggests that cuts in military spending could generate cash, but also proposes a rise in tax for big corporations. These are welcome proposals, but our group has one quibble. Big t***sformational projects are not financed from taxation. Kennedy’s moonshot wasn’t, nor is Britain’s HS2 rail project. Suggesting that the deal can be paid for through tax (even from big corporations) will rightly raise suspicions. Ordinary taxpayers will assume – as they did during the US debate about inheritance tax (reframed by the right as “death taxes”) – that the burden of such a carbon levy will fall instead on their shoulders.

So where should the money come from? There are fundamentally only two sources of financing. The first is borrowing (credit). This is achieved by applying for a loan, or issuing a bond. The second is existing savings.

To raise the money for a green deal, governments would have to draw on their equivalent of a giant credit card, but would also be able to take advantage of investment by savers. Thankfully, the creation of millions of jobs will generate the income and tax revenues needed to repay any borrowing. As Sanders argues, the whole thing will pay for itself.

First, the borrowing: credit issued by a commercial bank, as we all know from spending on our credit cards, does not draw on our existing deposits or savings. Instead it is a promise to pay in the future. OECD governments (backed by millions of taxpayers) are the most trusted borrowers, which is why their promises (bonds) are in such demand. Savings, by contrast, already exist – in bank deposits and savings accounts.

When a government borrows, as it has for financing HS2, that leads to investment and the creation of paid jobs in public and private sectors, and to private sector profits. Both employment income and profits generate tax revenues. Tax revenues are, therefore, a consequence of spending or investment – and can be used to pay back the borrowing. They need not be used directly to finance that investment.

During the second world war commercial banks provided credit to the government in the form of Treasury deposit receipts. They could do so again. But the government also has its own bank, the Bank of England, which issues credit, too (currently known as quantitative easing, or QE), and could use this to purchase government bonds.

To appeal to savers, the government could issue bonds to be repaid over different time periods – short, medium or long-term. These would attract pension funds and insurance companies, but also different kinds of individual savers. They would be able to invest their money in t***sforming the economy away from f****l f**ls, while receiving a regular income in the form of interest. For this to happen, governments would have to be “in the driving seat” when it comes to issuing bonds. Currently they’re more passive – relying almost entirely on demand from private capital markets.

As you can see, this system of financing is entirely doable. However, to succeed, our plan demands a decisive rupture from the neoliberal consensus of pairing expansionary monetary policy (QE) with contractionary fiscal policy (austerity).

The original Green New Deal group continues to meet, to argue, to indulge in good food and wine, and to plot the defeat of that consensus. Later this week, Caroline Lucas, together with Clive Lewis MP, will launch a bill embracing key principles of the plan. From small beginnings, a great change could soon be on its way.

• Ann Pettifor is the author of The Case for the Green New Deal, published by Verso

Governments around the world don’t need to raise t... (show quote)

Kevyn, be the first to go live under it.

GmanTerry

doggie wrote:

Excuse me. In the mean time who is paying for the 20 trillion debt we have now?

Our innocent grandchildren.

Semper Fi

MarvinSussman

Kevyn wrote:

Governments around the world don’t need to raise taxes in order to t***sform their economies and avert climate disaster

In September 2007, as credit was “crunched” and the financial crisis began to unfold, a group of economists and environmentalists, including the future Green party MP Caroline Lucas, met regularly in my small London flat. Supping on comfort food and wine, we argued furiously while drafting a plan we hoped would t***sform the economy and protect the ecosystem. We called it the Green New Deal. Little did we know that the ideas we seeded then would be adopted by a shooting star of the Democratic party, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, as part of her bid for a New York congressional seat in 2018.

Fast forward to 2019 and the Green New Deal is now at the centre of the 2020 US p**********l campaign. Bernie Sanders last week declared the climate crisis a national emergency and launched his version of the deal – a $16.3 trillion plan that includes massive investment in renewable energy, green infrastructure for climate resilience and money for research.

Sanders is vague about his financing plans. He suggests that cuts in military spending could generate cash, but also proposes a rise in tax for big corporations. These are welcome proposals, but our group has one quibble. Big t***sformational projects are not financed from taxation. Kennedy’s moonshot wasn’t, nor is Britain’s HS2 rail project. Suggesting that the deal can be paid for through tax (even from big corporations) will rightly raise suspicions. Ordinary taxpayers will assume – as they did during the US debate about inheritance tax (reframed by the right as “death taxes”) – that the burden of such a carbon levy will fall instead on their shoulders.

So where should the money come from? There are fundamentally only two sources of financing. The first is borrowing (credit). This is achieved by applying for a loan, or issuing a bond. The second is existing savings.

To raise the money for a green deal, governments would have to draw on their equivalent of a giant credit card, but would also be able to take advantage of investment by savers. Thankfully, the creation of millions of jobs will generate the income and tax revenues needed to repay any borrowing. As Sanders argues, the whole thing will pay for itself.

First, the borrowing: credit issued by a commercial bank, as we all know from spending on our credit cards, does not draw on our existing deposits or savings. Instead it is a promise to pay in the future. OECD governments (backed by millions of taxpayers) are the most trusted borrowers, which is why their promises (bonds) are in such demand. Savings, by contrast, already exist – in bank deposits and savings accounts.

When a government borrows, as it has for financing HS2, that leads to investment and the creation of paid jobs in public and private sectors, and to private sector profits. Both employment income and profits generate tax revenues. Tax revenues are, therefore, a consequence of spending or investment – and can be used to pay back the borrowing. They need not be used directly to finance that investment.

During the second world war commercial banks provided credit to the government in the form of Treasury deposit receipts. They could do so again. But the government also has its own bank, the Bank of England, which issues credit, too (currently known as quantitative easing, or QE), and could use this to purchase government bonds.

To appeal to savers, the government could issue bonds to be repaid over different time periods – short, medium or long-term. These would attract pension funds and insurance companies, but also different kinds of individual savers. They would be able to invest their money in t***sforming the economy away from f****l f**ls, while receiving a regular income in the form of interest. For this to happen, governments would have to be “in the driving seat” when it comes to issuing bonds. Currently they’re more passive – relying almost entirely on demand from private capital markets.

As you can see, this system of financing is entirely doable. However, to succeed, our plan demands a decisive rupture from the neoliberal consensus of pairing expansionary monetary policy (QE) with contractionary fiscal policy (austerity).

The original Green New Deal group continues to meet, to argue, to indulge in good food and wine, and to plot the defeat of that consensus. Later this week, Caroline Lucas, together with Clive Lewis MP, will launch a bill embracing key principles of the plan. From small beginnings, a great change could soon be on its way.

• Ann Pettifor is the author of The Case for the Green New Deal, published by Verso

Governments around the world don’t need to raise t... (show quote)

Utter nonsense! Neither bank credit nor private loans are necessary for Congressional spending on the Green New Deal! All that is needed is an act of Congress and the President's signature or an override v**e. The Treasury sends checks to contractors and the work gets done provided only that physical resources are available within the time required. That's the way aircraft carriers are built.

Income and savings are thereby generated and the IRS collects wh**ever taxes it can. Any deficit generates bond auctions to match any deficit. There are always enough savings generated to buy the offered bonds. Proof? WW II war bonds gave us nothing but prosperity! Same for the Green New Deal!

Sanders and Warren should speak to Dr. Stephanie Kelton who teaches economics at Stony Point, L.I., SUNY. She will explain Modern Money Theory (MMT). Enough of this nonsense!