[lbo-talk] Sawicky's Math (was Re: Obama on poverty:straightDLC=

sawicky at verizon.net sawicky at verizon.net
Thu Apr 3 08:24:50 PDT 2008


Tax structure is not important for redistribution, in my view. Much more redistribution happens on the expenditure side, so for tax systems bigger is generally better.

Of course it's logically possible for tax subsidies to have no important impact on inflation, including localized inflation, since the subsidy could be small compared to the associated economy.

There has not been much in the way of progressive tax legislation for some time.  The EITC is for those who are not likely to save much, with or without the EITC.  Even so, it is possible for wage subsidies (like the EITC) or minimum wage legislation or collective bargaining to raise wages without doing much for capital formation, insofar as workers choose not to save more.


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dmytri Kleiner
> Sent: 10:48 am
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Subject: [lbo-talk]  Re:  Sawicky's Math (was Re: Obama on
> poverty:straightDLC=
>
>
> On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 06:32:44 -0400, "Max B. Sawicky"
> <sawicky at verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> > If Bell is right a) we are truly screwed;
>
> Why? Are tax schemes and collective bargaining the only possible
> options for class struggle?
>
>
> > b) a lot of conservatives have been wasting their
> > time inveighing against trade unionism; and c) a lot of
> > lefts have been wasting their time supporting it.
>
> C is much true than b.
>
> Crocodile tears often conceal a delight in achieving labour peace,
> the real "product" of (non syndicalist) trade unions.
>
> Conservative use indignation and bluster as a bargaining strategy.
>
>
>
> > It's logically possible that wage or benefit increases are absorbed by
> > price changes.
>
> Is it logically possible that they are not?
>
>
> > There is no other reason to believe it, from what I've seen &
> > heard.
>
> I see, so after well over a century of "progressive" tax measures
> and collective bargaining, what is the rate of capital formation
> among wage earners? What was it before these measures?
>
>
> >>>> "It is sometimes said it would illogical for labour to resist
> >>>> a reduction of money-wages but not to resist a reduction of
> >>>> real wages [...] experience shows that this is how labour
> >>>> in fact behaves"
> >>>> -- John Maynard Keynes,
> >>>> The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money
>
>
>
> --
> Dmytri Kleiner
> editing text files since 1981
>
> http://www.telekommunisten.net
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list