-----Original Message----- From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Nathan Newman Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 9:22 AM To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com Subject: RE: Can We Appropriate the Rich? (Re: Surplus NOT from CapitalGainsReceipts
> NN: . . .
This assumes that what distinguishes European social democracy from the US
is its historic tax policies.
[mbs] I do not claim to know why Europe has s-d and the U.S. doesn't. I do not believe their tax systems are any kind of prime mover. My only claim is that large regressive tax systems are associated with large welfare states, so a focus on tax progressivity per se is not wise.
On the effectiveness of tax-the-rich politics . . .
NN: Walter Mondale ran a nice social democratic campaign in 1984 promising good social programs for all with taxes for all, . . .
[mbs] the hallmark of Mondale's program was to raise taxes to reduce the deficit. He did not propose a great deal in the way of new spending. His campaign was mostly about fiscal responsibility. It might be recalled that his chief economic spokesperson/adviser was Larry Summers.
NN: and he was defeated decisively. Clinton's tax-the-rich rhetoric for social programs was denounced by Tsongas as "pander bear" politics, but he won not only the nomination and the Presidency.
[mbs] Attributing Clinton's victory to his tax talk is pretty speculative, IMO.
NN: The fact is that for the social programs American receive, given that they don't have national health insurance, they ARE overtaxed - combining local, state and federal taxes - and resent the hell out of it given the benefits flowing to the wealthy and corporations from state policy.
[mbs] Bull. How can you be overtaxed for an insufficient amount of services? The only explanation is the military component or some gross inefficiency in service provision.
NN: . . . You and Doug talking about taxing those higher than the median income to subsidize the social programs of the lower median just does not have much political appeal to your average UPS driver or other $20 per hour worker just barely beating the median wage. Especially since they don't trust were the programs are going, it ends up being a political loser. -- Nathan Newman
It is true that the progressive agenda has limited appeal these days. That's not necessarily a reason to jettison it in favor of opportunism re: tax politics.
The working class would benefit from an expansion of the public sector, even if they pay for some of it. To me that is the fundamental lesson that needs to be imparted. It happens that right now, new taxes are not needed to do this, which is all the more reason to sideline a tax the rich emphasis. It's at best a defensive exercise, and mainly a sideshow.
mbs