Yup. I should have said `progressive' taxation in my earlier post, not `regressive' taxation. (I'm going to reply to myself to flag that.) In this we are in agr

Yup. I should have said `progressive' taxation in my earlier post, not `regressive' taxation. (I'm going to reply to myself to flag that.) In this we are in agreement. > I'll give you that without intervention the rentiers can get richer. This is a central claim of Marx! Those anti-Marx claim "it'll be okay because <some form of trickle-down economics>" or "you'll discourage entrepreneurs" or "taxes are theft!" or some other variant. What I'm trying to show is that you can agree with this part of Marx but reject his solution – state-run collectivisation or communism or whatever you want to call it. The trick is to not throw the baby out with the bath water. "The slave is sold once and for all; the proletarian must sell himself daily and hourly." Sell himself means sell his own toil, his own labo(u)r. If you are fortunate enough to have some form of rental income then your _capital_ is doing the work, ergo you are not part of the proletariat. I think that's pretty clear, no? Marxism != Communism Marxism != Anti-capitalist If you want for-profit capitalism to succeed you have to be partly Marxist, that's the irony given the way these terms have been bent out of shape. The fault-line of "property is theft!" from one side and "taxation is theft!" from the other to my mind illuminates the entire discussion. :)