David wrote:
>what is the justification for running a social security surplus today,
>other than as a regressive tax to fund general expenditures?
I'm sure that our politicians don't see it that way, but that's the way it
works.
>Is there any legitimate argument, then, against immediately reducing
>payroll taxes?
the main argument is that the US government shouldn't run deficits, so that
because our friend W. pushed through a (large & regressive & complicated)
tax-cut, there's no room for further tax cuts. Of course, that's
pre-Keynesian nonsense.
>It is also true that "Tomorrow's workers will have to provide the goods
>and services required by tomorrow's retirees." However, is that not the
>same thing as saying that today's workers are obligating tomorrow's
>workers to pay for today's workers retirement? Perhaps tomorrow's
>workers, if given the choice, would like to spend the additional 2% of GDP
>(let alone the existing 5% of GDP), to reduce childhood poverty, or
>cleanup the environment, or cut taxes. But that decision will not be
>allowed, because of this generation's decisions. Where is the justice in that?
I'm all in favor of deepening democratic decision-making. Let's have some
real elections for a change, so that such decisions can be made. Further,
we can think about doing stuff like dropping "Star Wars" and the
misbegotten "War on Drugs," in order to finance health, education, human
welfare, the natural environment, etc.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
