I’m not sure we’re really in disagreement, except with regard to precisely what counts as ‘in principle’. I’d argue that there’s nothing inherent in money that makes economic inequality lead to other forms of inequality – it’s an empirical fact about human societies that it does. What practical significance this distinction has on the policies we should adopt is probably pretty minimal.

In response to Reuben’s marginal utility point:

True in most cases, though there are exceptions. But that’s a point in favour of prioritarian redistribution, not egalitarian.

Privatisation simply results in private companies trying to grab more money from the treasury honey pot rather than each department trying to grab more money. At least the departments still directly employed by the government aren’t trying to profit out of being lying, thieving, incompetent bastards.

I’m not claiming this is a conspiracy or anything, just a culture that has spread in a somewhat memetic evolution kind-of-way, with the departments best at justifying extra money expanding faster than the others. And of course, it takes a brave civil servant to say ” Hey Guys, if we can do this in a more efficient way, there won’t need to be as many of us, and some of us will be made redundant. Let’s go!”

All of which increases the public spending, which then means more taxation, and taking money from people to fund it.

Do these benefit the capitalist economy? Well, that’s an open question. But there’s a fair point to make (using your “cui bono?” reasoning) that if those responsible for the transactions being taxed don’t avail themselves of social services, state education or health, then they shouldn’t have to pay.

This is the difficulty of assigning the cost according to who benefits. The reality is that the Left (including myself) don’t care whether the measure we want benefits those paying the cost. You frame this as “the majority” in a democracy becoming a master-signifier, to borrow from Lacan/Zizek.

I frame it as an exercise in class power; these measures benefit the working class, who are the basis for all production and profit, therefore those who own production and profit should be made to pay.

@Owen, why is economic inequality not wrong in principle?

It’s wrong in practice because economic inequality ultimately leads to the accumulation of private capital, by which the whole system of inequalities reproduces itself, right?

But isn’t the disparity in individual earnings not just an epiphenomenon of this wider process, and therefore just as wrong in principle?