> > [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Paul Henry Rosenberg
> >
> >
> > Max Sawicky wrote:
> >
> > > In either case, I'm not crazy about the idea.
> > > The system (benefits AND taxes) is already
> > > progressive. Taking the cap off would make
> > > it more progressive, which I have nothing
> > > against in principle. Right now, however,
> > > the system is under major attack, in part
> > > BECAUSE it is progressive. Thus now is not
> > > the best time to push for more progressivity.
> > > Defense of the basic premises of the program,
> > > including its progressivity, is the priority
> > > from my standpoint.
> >
> > The system's being attacked from the right. A basic element of their
> > attack is lack of money. Removing the cap brings in MORE money. WHY
> > NOT TALK ABOUT IT??? What BETTER time could there possibly be to talk
> > about it??? In fact, we should be SHOVING IT DOWN THEIR THROATS!
>
> But there is no lack of money. Rejecting that
> premise gets the monkey off our backs,and as
> HK used to say, it has the added advantage
> of being true.
I KNOW there's no lack of money. But that basic fact seems to have played ZERO role in the policy debate so far. In fact, if that fact were fully recognized, there would BE NO POLICY DEBATE AT ALL!
The point is, it's strategy 101 to take every possible advantage. Take every opportunity to put the other side on the defensive.
If talk about a mythical shortfall becomes distasteful enough as a result, and they retreat, then have RAISED THE POSSIBILITY of removing the cap will remain as a residual idea attacking the sanctity of wealth--hardly a bad kind of resiudue to leave behind.
> If we were in the business of proposing fixes
> for the 75 year 'problem,' there's a case for
> proposing that the share of wages subject to
> tax should be kept at 90 percent. It has
> been drifting down in recent years (to about
> 85 percent, I believe). This would raise
> the cap from its present level of about $66K
> to about $88K. This will probably be part
> of the solution proposed to Dems, if they
> propose one at all.
So long as your first suggestion is already a compromise, you've eliminated the need for half your enemies. They are now free to devote themselves to other battles. Why cut them that kind of slack???
-- Paul Rosenberg Reason and Democracy rad at gte.net
"Let's put the information BACK into the information age!"