In some respects (not all - I just highlight the flaws), the state does not promote leftist ideals:[Já agora, também este post n'O Insurgente e respectivos comentários]
- It is not very redistributive. The difference between the Gini coefficient for post-tax income (that is, income including benefits after direct and indirect tax) and original income is only seven percentage points: 38% vs. 45%. The tax rate for the middle quintile, at 27%, is not far short of the 32.6% on the top quintile. To a large extent, therefore, the state redistributes income within the working class. And this has an unpleasant effect. It leads to a “divide and rule” the working class, with some public workers and benefit “scroungers“ being stigmatized.
- It is insufficient to protect the interests of the vulnerable. The state can be - and often is - captured by people hostile to the worst-off with the result that benefits are cut.
- The state serves the interests of the rich whilst attacking the poor. A man who, in his mental distress, tries to kill himself is imprisoned for damaging property. A man who, with a more respectable mental disorder, wrecks the economy merely loses a knighthood; those who say Fred Goodwin broke no law miss the point - that there are no laws against capitalist vandalism.
- The state serves as a lightning conductor, which deflects criticism away from capitalism - for example, when the crisis is blamed upon Labour’s deficit or weak banking regulation rather than the flaws of capitalism itself.
- The state is run according to the same dysfunctional ideology than runs business - hierarchical managerialism. However, in the private sector its flaws are mitigated by the forces of competition whereas they are much less so in government. The upshot is that the state offers indifferent value for money.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Publicada por Miguel Madeira em 18:07