It should be pointed out that we get into these problems of high marginal tax
rates and rapid phase-outs because unlike every other country, we try to support
families indirectly through the tax code rather than directly through universal
family/children allowances. If we are going to spend $85
It should be pointed out that we get into these problems of high marginal
tax
rates and rapid phase-outs because unlike every other country, we try to
support families indirectly through the tax code rather than directly
through universal family/children allowances. If we are going to spend $85
This is the classic problem of universalism vs. targeting efficiency, but I'm
not sure I come down on the same side you do. On the universalistic side,
money for the poor requires, as a kind of informal political blackmail, money
for the rich (or at least the more affluent). Targeting focuses the
This is the classic problem of universalism vs. targeting efficiency, but
I'm
not sure I come down on the same side you do. On the universalistic side,
money for the poor requires, as a kind of informal political blackmail,
money
for the rich (or at least the more affluent). Targeting focuses the
On Behalf Of Max Sawicky
If you spread $85 billion over all families w/children,
the poor would see less than they do now.
Here is where I politically disagree with you. If most families with
children were given the credit, a larger percentage of them would have no
tax liability at all.
Max:
Then, you are trying to find a way to do targeting within universalism, and we
agree. I thought for a long time that something like what you are doing is the
way out of the dilemma I described, so I'd be interested in seeing what you
come up with.
Joel Blau
Max Sawicky wrote:
This is
On Behalf Of Max Sawicky
If you spread $85 billion over all families w/children,
the poor would see less than they do now.
Here is where I politically disagree with you. If most families with
children were given the credit, a larger percentage of them would have no
tax liability at all. They
In October 1996, academic pragmatist superstar Richard Rorty (along with
Cornel West and Betty Friedan) shared the platform with AFL-CIO head John
Sweeny at a teach-in held at Columbia University which was attended by
several thousand students, unionists and assorted activists. Many of us,
The problem that Louis seems to be noting is that a move is afoot to make
social security means tested which converts it to a welfare program. Rorty
doesn't realize that once a program becomes a program for the needy, that it is
doomed.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State
On Behalf Of Max Sawicky
I happen not to put much stock in the so-called
marginal implicit tax rate. I don't think people
making $16,500 determine whether they will optimize
by moving to $16,501 or $16,499. The main thing
under the EITC is that, for those eligible, they
have more income
Well I thought that you were arguing that earnings tests were OK because the
system had survived that long with them. This also counters Michael's point. But
if you are not arguing that earnings tests are OK because the system has
survived politically with them my analogy is not at all
On Behalf Of Max Sawicky
I happen not to put much stock in the so-called
marginal implicit tax rate. . . .
NN:
That's one main thing, but I think you are falling into serious
number-crunching wonkery if you don't think it matters to a person that when
they get a raise, the government takes a
On Behalf Of Max B. Sawicky
[mbs] A concern with marginal tax rates is founded on behavior.
My skepticism rests on the question of behavioral effects.
Certainly a raise that is consumed by the Gov is demoralizing.
Whether someone has the flexibility and inclination to change
their work
. . .
The problem is if you want to do an earned income tax
credit (or a negative income tax), the more you give, the
more you have to take away, and the higher the implicit
marginal tax rate must be in the take-away zone.
If you want a low marginal rate at the bottom, you must
dispense
This uninformed post can best be understood as
a futile effort to deny that non-revolutionaries
have a serious interest in reducing inequality
and supporting the working class. There must be
a lot of grounds for criticizing Rorty, but none
of them are found in this post.
LP:
. . . there has
I think it would be more accurate to say that the political implications of
Rorty's column are up for grabs. Under the best circumstances, universal social
programs--and Social Security is about as close to a universal social program
as we have in this country--should have their benefits taxed
[mbs] Evidentally LP hasn't heard of the AFL's campaign
on behalf of the strawberry workers in CA. One might
criticize the manner in which this campaign was
prosecuted, but "virtually no movement" is not
a remotely accurate characterization of what was
attempted.
When the UFW organized grape
I absolutely agree with this in the sense that we are dealing with a
"broken line." In essence, the proposed legislation has to be seen in the
context of the overall attack on Social Security. It has been a pet
hobbyhorse of the Republicans and the corporate elite for many years. So
when
Max, the tone of your note is overly contentious. Try not to call somebody
uninformed even if you think your information is better than that of the other
person. Misinformed is probably worse.
Max Sawicky wrote:
This uninformed post can best be understood as
a futile effort to deny that
Louis:
But it is not anti-entitlement rhetoric. It is rhetoric against a particular
threshold for mandating taxes against the more affluent elderly, which, as Max
said, in the context of a screed against growing income inequality, is an entirely
different matter. To pursue the logic of your
I guess I sort of split the difference with Lou Max on this. It's
nice, as Max said, to see someone talking about inequality on the
op-ed page of the NYT; it's virtually disappeared as a political
issue (probably because liberals were happy to condemn it when they
could blame it on Reagan
I guess I sort of split the difference with Lou Max on this. It's
nice, as Max said, to see someone talking about inequality on the
op-ed page of the NYT; it's virtually disappeared as a political
issue (probably because liberals were happy to condemn it when they
could blame it on Reagan
On Behalf Of Michael Perelman
The problem that Louis seems to be noting is that a move is afoot to make
social security means tested which converts it to a welfare
program. Rorty
doesn't realize that once a program becomes a program for the
needy, that it is
doomed.
Michael, I think you
While I agree with Louis' critique of Rorty I don't see any evidence given that
the AFL-CIO supports Rorty's position. Rorty's logic would lead to means
testing but in itself I don't see how it implies anything one way or the other
about privatisation. Does the AFL-CIO support privatisation?
Max, the tone of your note is overly contentious. Try not to call somebody
uninformed even if you think your information is better than that of the other
person. Misinformed is probably worse.
I would rather be called "misinformed" than
"uninformed"--"misinformed" at least implies that I have
Ken:
While I agree with Louis' critique of Rorty I don't see any evidence given
that
the AFL-CIO supports Rorty's position. Rorty's logic would lead to means
testing but in itself I don't see how it implies anything one way or the
other
about privatisation. Does the AFL-CIO support privatisation?
So how long did the US survive with slavery, with no voting rights for blacks or
women.
Is that an argument for slavery, etc.?
Nathan wrote:
Social Security survived for sixty-five years with the earnings test, so it
is more likely part of the reason for its resiliency not a hindrance as
On Behalf Of Ken Hanly
So how long did the US survive with slavery, with no voting
rights for blacks or
women.
Is that an argument for slavery, etc.?
Ken, this is just a bizarre analogy. Michael argues that earnings tests
endanger SS's political survivability; I point out that it has
On Behalf Of Michael Perelman
I sympathize with much of the rest that you wrote, except for
your defense of
the Democrats. I will not go into that space because we have
already rehashed
much of that discussion.
Boy, the one time I condemn the Democratic "capitulation" to the Right and
A basic feature about Social Security that seems
to be under-appreciated is that it is already
'means-tested' to a degree. It's not an either/
or proposition. First of all, the benefit formula
is redistributive, which is the same thing for
practical purposes as 'means-tested.' It just
happens
On Behalf Of Max Sawicky
Fourth, we have an Earned Income
Tax credit, the base for which is the same
as that for the payroll tax, so there is already
an offset to the payroll tax for those with incomes
below $30K or so.
I am glad to see everybody against means-testing.
But consistency
NEWMAN!
" . . . during the phaseout of EITC,
for those making above $13,000 per year with a couple of kids, they face
something like a 35% tax rate from FICA plus EITC phaseout on all additional
income, . . .
It just so happens that I'm finishing a paper
now w/Bob Cherry on expanding the EITC
Max, this is a very informative post. Quite a few people complain about paying
school taxes because they do not have any children in school. Here in Chico, we
finally passed a school bond on the fourth try. But it was close to failing
again.
I worry that the same could happen to Social
Max, this is a very informative post. Quite a few people complain about
paying school taxes because they do not have any children in school. Here
in Chico, we finally passed a school bond on the fourth try. But it was
close to failing again.
I worry that the same could happen to Social
34 matches
Mail list logo
