The many faces of Karl Marx. We know of the revolutionary, the prophet, the historian and the philosopher. But he had one another: the romantic idealist exhorting man to triumph over the things he manufactures…
Karl Marx…But ultimately of course, the political and social scientist were uppermost. Marx had already, before he came to London, developed his characteristic theory of history: that a society’s legal and political institutions are an expression of its economic substructure. But it was in England, in the British Museum, that Marx did his fundamental research as an economist and social scientist, and prepared his most celebrated work, Capital. Marx’s book is a strange amalgam: it is a highly abstract theoretical economic analysis designed to show that the capitalist annexed all the surplus value produced by the worker, leaving the latter nothing but his bare subsistence, and himself contributing nothing;…
…there is a good deal of economic history, of which Marx was a pioneer, analyzing the earlier stages of capital accumulation, the dispossession of the European peasantry, and the development of European industrial and mercantile civilization. And there is the statistical demonstration of the human cost of early industrialism, compiled chiefly from the evidence of the British government’s own commissions and the reports of its factory inspectors.
Marx here joins Dickens, Disraeli, Carlyle and other Victorians appalled by the conditions of industrial and urban life. These pages of Capital are, for all Marx’s attempts to refrain from mere denunciation, the work of an angry moralist who could see in the cold figures “the motley crowd of workers of all ages, and sexes, that press on us more insistently than did the souls of the slain on Ulysses.”
(see link at end)…As noted by Statscan in their release, the top 1 per cent, who earn at least $201,400, paid 21.2 per cent of all federal and provincial income taxes in 2010.
While this indicates that our income tax system is still fairly progressive, some among the affluent will be quick to argue that they are paying well above their fair share.
But the figures show that the effective tax rate on the very high income earners has been falling rapidly, especially for the super-rich.
A very large slice (35 per cent) of the incomes of the top 1 per cent goes to the top 0.1 per cent, the elite group that makes up one tax filer in every 1,000. In 2010, the incomes of the top 0.1 per cent began at $685,000 and averaged $1,519,000.
The top 0.1 per cent paid income tax at an average effective rate of 35.4 per cent in 2010. While much higher than the effective tax rate paid by the bottom 99 per cent, that is only slightly higher than thective income tax rate of 33.3 per cent, which was paid by the top 1 per cent as a whole.
The effective income tax rate paid by the top 0.1 per cent has fallen very sharply, from 41.6 per cent to 35.4 per cent since 2000. This compares to a fall in the effective rate from 39.4 per cent to 33.3 per cent for the top 1 per cent as a whole, and a fall from 18.0 per cent to 14.8 per cent for the bottom 99 per cent.
One has to question why federal and provincial governments have chosen to cut effective top tax rates by so much while the income share of the super-affluent has been rising so rapidly. While the share of taxes paid by the very affluent has more or less matched their rising share of income, the fact remains that the income tax system has done nothing to offset rising income inequality….Read More:http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/how-more-tax-on-the-super-rich-will-help-ease-income-inequality/article8009668/