"Capital is dead work that lives only by sucking of living labour, vampire-like, and the more lives the more work it sucks."
I have reviewed in this article and I'm strange with the author, but it is still awfully interesting.
Tim Worstall write for adamsmith.org says that the taxation of capital will be reduced not inequality of income because rich people today rich to get by investing, but by 'Investment' in her own work:
Maybe our friends lefty right..., that we should capital tax, the things in the possession and the rich, more highly held social reasons?
Well, no, it has a huge underlying change in what where deserve since the gilded age. It was true (these are Canadian figures but much the same numbers for USA and UK), that the majority of the upper income from income from capital, and also came the majority of the capital was result to top income of peeps.
That's not necessarily true today at all.
Occurs by far the majority of upper income from labour income these days. And the majority of the investment income is the income scale to those below: Canada, 50% of the investment income went to workers with an income of less than $60,000 per year. It is simply not true (as it was probably a century ago), those get it with high income from interest and dividends, you make everything to have.
To increase capital taxation only going to reduce inequality of incomes for the top earners are always your income isn't from their work, our work.
As so often, we find our lefty friends who fight the battles of a century ago. Since it is not true that high income are a result of capital concentration then tax returns to capital, to either go reduce high incomes and income inequality.
If Worstall is correct and I believe he is – increasing taxes on capital gains and dividends will do little reducing of inequality of incomes in the United States and can even increase it.
Even better, if capital accumulation no longer is the owning and the have nots, then what is a Marxist to do?
Now, I know one thing, the he's not: give, that rich not enough because you control the levers of the capital. After all, if the recording he was made a Marxist no longer and he would be having to admit always closer to the equally unfathomable:, the rich their disproportionate wealth through one or a combination of the following deserve:
(a) work harder
work (intelligent b)
God forbid.
Footnotes:
Technology¹ America is no longer a capital intensive, production-based society, but rather a service economy. This means work, not capital. As a result, it is rich to get through education of human capital, but rather work useful if Worstall says that rich no longer. The only remaining question is "whose work?" Think about the super-rich in America? Top flight doctors, elite lawyers, professional athletes and entertainers. You all make their wealth largely due to one of their own work. In short, the rich are not rich in America because you have stockpiled the means of production. They are rich, because you deserve it.
Trimiteți un comentariu