New study/experiment. Uber conservatives now get a diagnosis?

[DanaC]

In other words, redistribute wealth so that no one has more than Dana?

That's not what I said. I am talking about a change in the balance of redistributive taxation, not instituting a communist revolution. In my own country we used to have a system of 'super tax' for the highest earners. That supertax had those earners paying £0.90 in every £1 that they earned above the threshold.

Even I think that's too much. It damaged the country and led to problems. But, I think we've now gone too far the other way, with the highest earners paying ( I believe) £0.40 in every £1. What I am in favour of is an increase in the current level without going as high as we did in the 70s.

Like I say, what I am talking about is changing the balance of that taxation system, not abandoning capitalism in favour of a workers' state.

As to the 'marxism' thing. Yes, he saw revolution as a necessary phase to go through in order to achieve a workers' state. But that was in a particular time and place and yes I think he got that part wrong. When I say I take a marxist analysis, I am talking about a way of looking at the relationship between the owners and the producers of wealth. Like many 'marxists' or 'socialists' in Europe I believe that perspective still has much to tell us about the world and is still relevant.

You mentioned Aristotle. Another philospher whose thoughts on the world still have relevance today. But also, like anybody writing in a different era to our own there will be elements of his thinking which do not apply to the modern world (read 'Politics' and how it deals with the issue of slavery and the role of women in society) which were central parts of his worldview and which if we follow your logic should mean we cease to apply all his logic/philosphy to the modern world.

The world changes. People write and philosophise to the world as it is to them. Some of what they write and philosophise still applies to our world, some of it is consigned to the point in time when they were writing.

Another pipe dream. Attitudes like that will make you fresh meat.

Attitudes like that underpin much of what has been termed European Socialism.

[orthodoc]

Originally Posted by DanaC

That supertax had those earners paying £0.90 in every £1 that they earned above the threshold.

Even I think that's too much. It damaged the country and led to problems. But, I think we've now gone too far the other way, with the highest earners paying ( I believe) £0.40 in every £1. What I am in favour of is an increase in the current level without going as high as we did in the 70s.

England saw the inevitable result of drastic forced distribution of wealth when the supertax was in place. Those who had previously earned more either left the country or stopped earning. The trouble is, with the top few percent of earners basically supporting the entire country (in this country, the top 25% of earners pay 85% of all taxes; the top 1% of earners pay 37% of all taxes), when you remove their will to be productive by stealing most of their income, you have nothing left to redistribute.

I suspect that the top marginal tax rate in England is probably better than 40% once hidden taxes are added in. In Canada the official top federal marginal rate is 29%. Sounds great. But with provincial taxes, health tax, and the Canadian version of the supertax, someone earning in the top ten percent pays more than 50% of income to taxes. Then there are high property taxes and a 14% sales tax on all goods and services. At that point there's a serious disincentive to continue being productive.

As to the 'marxism' thing. Yes, he saw revolution as a necessary phase to go through in order to achieve a workers' state. But that was in a particular time and place and yes I think he got that part wrong.

When it's a critical part of his program, can you then truly say you're a Marxist? You seem to have created your own version, which is fair enough, but when you say you're a Marxist it leads people to think of his program, not yours.

When I say I take a marxist analysis, I am talking about a way of looking at the relationship between the owners and the producers of wealth. Like many 'marxists' or 'socialists' in Europe I believe that perspective still has much to tell us about the world and is still relevant.

But the owners of wealth are its producers, i.e. the ones who started the companies to produce goods that people want. The line workers in this analogy haven't the knowledge or ability to start that company and run it; if they did, they wouldn't be on the line. And not all wealth is produced in factories. Someone who writes a book or composes music or invents something that no one else can, or has done, owns that. You could take away their earnings and give them to other people to 'help' them create things, but you wouldn't achieve your object. I believe that the 'marxist' perspective only panders to envy and resentment, and is actually in serious error.

You mentioned Aristotle. Another philospher whose thoughts on the world still have relevance today. But also, like anybody writing in a different era to our own there will be elements of his thinking which do not apply to the modern world (read 'Politics' and how it deals with the issue of slavery and the role of women in society) which were central parts of his worldview and which if we follow your logic should mean we cease to apply all his logic/philosphy to the modern world.

???I didn't apply any logic to Aristotle's worldview; I said that one of his ideas was useful and true: that it's a bad idea to attempt to make unequal things equal. Instead of diverting the discussion with references to slavery and the role of women, why not address the issue that people are not all the same and therefore interchangeable, and that the mopper of floors may do an admirable job cleaning the tile but is not exchangeable with whoever started and runs the company?