[lbo-talk] Liberal Intellectuals and the Coordinator Class

Robert Wrubel bobwrubel at yahoo.com
Wed Jul 11 11:05:02 PDT 2007


Interesting thought, Jordan. If there's no limit to how much the ambitious, or greedy, can work and make, then wouldnt you wind up with the same priviledged and possessing class we now have? Maybe the first piece of a reformed tax system would have to be a ban or limit on inherited wealth. (Someone made a similar proposal for corporations -- a limit on their longevity, or conditions for their renewal, like meeting certain social obligations.)

If you use progressive taxation to control the accumulation of wealth, then you might take away the incentive to work. It would be a matter of very fine-tuning. Also, to make the whole system really fair, you'd have to be sure there were no advantages of education given to one group or another.

BobW --- Jordan Hayes <jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com> wrote:


> Doug asks:
>
> > Really - do you think a just society should allow
> some people to
> > coast by on the labor of others?
>
> I do. In fact, I think it's central to my "one
> question political
> test" ...
>
> What is to be one with people who will not or cannot
> work?
>
> It seems to me that there's a certain level that's
> humane and just and
> affordable ... and insufficient for the significant
> majority of people
> who want more than that. But really, I think we're
> at the point where
> there's not enough work to be done by all the people
> we have, so better
> it should be done by people who want to do it -- and
> thus get more than
> whatever the minimum is. But the minimum should be
> way higher than it
> is today.
>
> It would be a bold experiment, but I don't think it
> would be hard to
> figure out what the right level is, and I'm not just
> talking about the
> stigma of that nasty yellow cheese. Housing,
> medical care, food. It
> really shouldn't be that hard to provide that for
> anyone who wants it
> and still encourage those who want more than that to
> keep doing what
> they are doing. You've said it before: it seems
> inconceivable to you
> that there are people who will work for more even
> when they have more
> than they could spend.
>
> So why not take advantage of that instead of
> wondering why?
>
> There's some precedent for it: people paying more
> than their "fair"
> share for things they don't use. Education,
> transportation, emergency
> rooms, homeland security: "rich" people would claim
> they pay too much
> for how much they use, and yet ... there's no tax
> revolt in the US. It
> could go a few steps further, I think.
>
> But it would mean having a cleaned up tax system;
> I've said it before,
> but to recap:
>
> - One tax, a progressive income tax, for the entire
> budget
> - No regressive "payroll" taxes
> - All costs on-budget (no SSA carveouts)
>
> Doug: what's wrong with people who don't want to
> work? Did your mother
> work? Ok, cheap shot: mine did. How about your
> grandmother?
>
> /jordan
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list