[lbo-talk] Kerry's Tax Cut Makes Me Wanna Ralph

Max B. Sawicky sawicky at bellatlantic.net
Thu Apr 1 08:36:22 PST 2004


Galbraith made the same point, but I think he's wrong. The Bush forecast implied a huge acceleration from the current path to 'trend.' It's always safe to predict that you'll get back to trend. That's why they call it trend. The question is when and how fast.


>10 million is about in line with long-term averages. Why is it exaggerated?


>If only Kerry had a fiscal policy.


>You mean, if only he wanted to run big deficits? We've got those, Japan has
those, and they >>ain't helping. During the heyday of social dem, Sweden ran a balanced budget and was close >>to full employment.

The two problems with the U.S. deficit is composition and distribution over time. Composition could be more progressive, and less backloading might have more positive effect on investment. It's one thing to raise these and note the limitations and doubts, and it's another to bloviate about big deficits. So far Kerry's in the latter mode, as far as I can see. If Kerry had Swedish policies this would be a different conversation.

I don't blame Kerry for going into DLC mode. That's how he thinks he has to win the election. I do fault him for laying out principles with little or no political juice that signal fundamentally bad philosophical/political economic principles.


>The second piece is the proposed cut in the corporate tax rate. That
>this would have any impact on U.S. jobs is to be doubted
><http://maxspeak.org/mt/archives/000176.html>. In and of itself, it's a
>revenue loser. It embodies a rotten principle. If cutting the rate 2.5
>percentage points is good, why not ten percent? Why have a corporate
>income tax at all?


>That's a good question, and one I often ask myself. Who pays the corporate
tax ultimately? >>>Hard to say really. Why not replace it with higher taxes on rich individuals?


>This is the essence of Clinto-Rubinomics. Propose a tiny change that
>fails to roil the base and embodies a fundamentally bad notion, then
>step back and let the Right practice one-upmanship with the bad idea.


>A minor detail: Clinton won two elections, and went out with a 60% approval
rating.
>Doug

Why have a CIT?

* There's good evidence that the CIT is the only progressive component of the tax system.

* It's the best way to tax income sheltered in business entities.

* It's easier to tax business entities than individuals.

I could imagine a progressive consumption-based tax system, but I wouldn't give up the CIT and current system without a big quid pro quo, including a commitment to a substantial revenue increase.

mbs



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list