> HI Chuck,
>
> As a classconscious prole, I'm always fascinated with
> the question of why a reformist political party would
> pick certain limits as being more reasonable than
> others.
chuck says: fair enough.
>
> For instance:
>
> chuck at hvgreens.org wrote:
>
> > a) A proposed change to the State Constitution
> that would both
> lower the
> >State Sales Tax from 6% to 5% and increase taxes on
> the top 5% (ie.
> income >=
> >$139K/year) of the income distribution an additional
> 4%. The net
> result would
> >be an increase in revenue to the State of about $700
> million, which
> would
> >offset a deficit of $1-2 billion in the current
> fiscal year.
> *******************************************************
>
> Sales taxes are inherently regressive. Why not dream
> up a scheme to abolish them in favour of getting the
> wealth which we workers create back to us from a piece
> of the pie which the employing class already enjoys
> e.g. corporate profits or rents above a certain level?
> *******************************************************
chuck says: Your use of the term "dream" is appropriate. It's nice to dream about what is possible since it's a good guide to something creative. However, if the idea has a snowball's chance in hell of getting implemented, it will never be more than a dream. My feeling is that the Greens will never be in a position to implement major social/economic change unless we can start winning victories for our side. The best way to confront the Republican juggernaught is to knock a few holes in their underside, exposing some weakness. If the Republican agenda is perceived as vulnerable by the public, an entirely new political environment would be brought about.
The above said, the proposal is to combine a net tax cut for about 95% of the households with an income tax increase for the top 5%. My hope is that this will provide a broad basis to unite with a number of important players in Michigan politics who have been getting the short end of the Republican stick, that is, the UAW, Teachers Unions, Cities like Detroit. The fact is, the Republicans have made tax increases into a third rail of politics, touch it and you die. The Democratic party, including the newly elected Democratic Gov., Jennifer Grandholm, are running scared on this point and would never propose something like this. If someone(someone like the Greens) can show that tax increases are possible and even popular, that would blow Republican dogma out of the water.
>
> > b) Require all businesses in the state to provide
> 40 hours of paid
> vacation
> >for each 13 weeks of employment. The 40 hours would
> apply even if the
> job in
> >question is only part-time.
>
> *******************************************************
> Not bad. Any gain in free-time is a gain in freedom
> from wage-slavery. Of course, I'd like to see more
> done in this area. Perhaps, during the inevitable
> debates on this question, your party could be good
> enough to bring up the question of who actually is
> creating the wealth for the employers--i.e. the ones
> who would begrudge proles a little more time off for
> good behaviour.
> *****
chuck says: The whole idea with this one is to restrict the supply of labor and hence, lower the amount of unemployment. Again, I have intentionally picked something I think would be popular with the public and therefor, more likely to come about.
>
> > c) Place a wage tax of $0.75/hour that would be
> used to fund a
> defined
> >benefit pension plan for all workers in the state.
> ********
>
> What is a wage tax? Do you mean that you want to
> propose to take even more of the wealth we create from
> us in order to fund our own retirement?
>
> If so, think again. Take the money from those who
> enjoy the lion's share of what we create in the first
> place. Also, make damn certain that this can't be
> used as a wedge issue to trash the existing (if
> inadequate) Social Security System.
> *******
Chuck says: In Michigan, like most states, a wage tax is a tax businesses pay as a percent of its payroll. Again, most states use a wage tax to finance unemployment insurance, for example. The idea here is to reduce the amount of time workers spend in the workforce, thereby reducing unemployment. So, why do I keep harping on reducing unemployment? Simple, of all the things that determine how big a slice labor gets of the existing economic pie, unemployment is the biggest factor. Holding unemployment down to less than it would otherwise be will do the most to raise incomes for ordinary people in the long run. Finally, as a last point here, if you don't change the mechanism that the economy uses to slice the economic pie(i.e. mainly unemployment), it does not matter much whether you tax wages, profits or wealth because working people will tend to end up with the same compensation at the end of the day.
>
> Also, index the
> minimum
> >retirement age to collect the pension benefits to the
> unemployment
> rate so the
> >minimum age drops when unemployment goes up.
> ********
> Ok, no problem. Let's start the minimum age between
> 50 and 55, ok?
>
Chuck says: As a side point, I'd like to see the Federal Government lower the age of retirement to collect Social Security by two years at least until unemployment drops to around 4%. A program like this could actually provide the fiscal stimulus the economy needs. Of course, the Bush administration and the Federal Reserve would never go for something like this, which explains why I would like to do it at the state level.
>
> Hi-ho,
> Mike B)
>
>
>
>
>
> =====
> *****************************************************************
> "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
>
> Benjamin Franklin
>
> http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
> http://search.yahoo.com
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/