>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Justin Schwartz" <jkschw at hotmail.com>
>
>
>The latter. It's called an incentive. Of course that's a
>democratic decision
>to be made by the legislature, how to set the tax rates,
>but if all the
>fruits of luck or talent are taxed away, you might as well
>not have a market
>system.
>
>==============
>Ok and how do you avoid the ridiculousness of
>winner-take-all outcomes that occur in some markets?
Your playing devil's advocate, right? That's what taxes are for. Rawls' idea
that no more inequality should be permitted than is necessary to provide
incentives great enough so that the inequalities that exist benefit the
least well off is not a bad target to aim at. I mysekf would support a more
liberal rule allowing greater inequality: inequalities are fine so long as
they do not hurt the least well off.
>
>
>I think socialists have to return to Marx's perspective on
>this and give up
>on the bourgeois idea that equality of incomes is
>important. Marx didn't
>think so. He was right, too.
>
>jks
>
>===============
>That's where a basic income grant comes in; whether or not
>it's hooked to full employment via Gov. job, service
>learning networks etc. a la Andre Gorz or Adrian Little
>would be decided, again, by the legislative bodies. No one
>would starve or be unable to pay for housing etc.
>
>
There are a lot of possible mechanisms. In the Schweickart model, there's full employment with adequate support for those unable to work. Dave and I think that it is politically necessary and morally right to require those who are able to work to do so.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx