...tends to generate ever more surplus, yet it fails to provide the consumption and investment outlets required for the absorption of a rising surplus and hence for the smooth working of the system. Since surplus which cannot be absorbed will not be produced, it follows that the normal state of the monopoly capitalist economy is stagnation (p108).The essence of the market is that surplus goes to those who produce it: this is a stable situation because it gives the producer an incentive to produce more surplus. But perhaps modern economies of scale and scope lead naturally to ownership, or at least control, being concentrated in the hands of a small number of people: control can't be spread more broadly because of the rational ignorance of the crowd. Sharing a growing amount of wealth among a smaller number of people means that - as Baran and Sweezy suggest - those in control are no longer significantly incentivised by additional consumption, and may stop bothering to produce more.
Thus, the stable state which ensures continuing growth is for some of this surplus to be redistributed to those who do not own or control the means of production.
If enough of the surplus is redistributed, the capitalists are left with little enough that they do have an incentive to keep working to produce more.
In this model, high tax rates are not a disincentive to productivity but an incentive.
So: there's a blatantly counterintuitive proposal - what do you think?