From: Gerald A. Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Wed May 19 2004 - 07:17:53 EDT
Hi again Ernesto. Previously I asked: > But, so long as capitalist relations of production prevail, what > is the impact of a heavily progressive income tax on the accumulation > of capital? You replied: > I do not precisely know. But I do not think it would dramatically > impair it. It might depend on just _how_ heavily progressive the income tax is. E.g. (supposing also that tax holidays, subsidies, and loopholes for corporations and investors are also closed) , a _very_ heavy income tax (e.g. an effective tax rate of 95% for the top 10% income earners) would mean that there would be dramatically less funds available for investment in c and v and hence there would be de-accumulation of capital -- even though demand by working-class families for consumption goods might well be increasing. *Of course*, this couldn't happen without workers' struggles *and* capital has some options (since after all there are nation-states with sovereignty which develop their own tax and public finance policies) including a "capital strike" and re-locating where the "investment climate" is better. And there are more ominous bourgeois options as well, e.g. a coup d' etat and the re-emergence of fascism as a means of overcoming a state-imposed policy that violates the best interests of the bourgeoisie. To prevent this from happening, the working-class might have to organize their own armed militias (recall this week's news from Venezuela). This suggests that if the tax is heavy enough then the class struggle would become (non-metaphorically) an actual class _war_. Such a circumstance might coincide with what Lenin and Trotsky called "dual power" and probably wouldn't last too long since one side or the other would succeed in forcibly imposing its will. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 20 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT