[lbo-talk] A Case for Working-Class Tax Cuts

Bill Bartlett billbartlett at dodo.com.au
Wed Feb 22 16:42:44 PST 2006


At 5:19 PM -0600 22/2/06, Carrol Cox wrote:


>I think it could be argued (if one accepts Marx's theory of value) that
>all taxes are part of surplus value -- in which case taxes on workers
>are a major deception, for their _actual_ wage is the wage after taxes,

Well, I don't know much about marx, but I know that most workers certainly don't count the theoretical part of their wage that their boss sends directly to the taxman as part of their wage. Take-home pay is what counts.


>and they have simply been made the courier for transferring part of
>surplus value to the capitalist state!

Workers don't actually get to handle the money. If they did, whenever they get the chance, they tend to hang on to it (by failing to lodge a tax return for example). The workers role in the payroll tax system is to file a tax return, in return for a fee from the government which is referred to as an "income tax refund", but which is actually of course a sort of auditing fee. This is a very efficient way for the state to ensure that most of the payroll taxes each employer is required to pay are actually paid. Enlisting every bosses workers as spies for the state.

Yes, all taxes are deducted from surplus value. Higher taxes are no problem for the working class. To the extent that governments redistribute tax monies to income support for pensioners, the disabled, the unemployed, etc, this is a redistribution of employer profits to the working class. The social wage is thus, like direct wages, paid at the expense of profits.

Cuts in the social wage, which are inevitably the flip side of tax cuts, are often bad for the working class. It is preposterous to imagine that cuts in payroll tax, for example, will result in any benefit to wage-earners. Prevailing wages (that is to say of course take-home wages) are a product of market forces.

Higher take-home pay brought about by a cut in payroll taxes, which is accompanied by a cut in the social wage (services and income support payments paid for out of tax revenue) provides no advantage to either workers as a class or even bosses as a class. Though *some* bosses, in some sectors of the economy will get some (often temporary) advantages from particular tax cuts at the expense of other bosses in other industries. Who wins and who loses will depend on the particular tax being cut.

But any workers who appear to get an advantage will quickly find that the advantage is temporary, if not completely illusionary. It will be immediately corrected by market forces. Most bosses will find that any general reduction in the social wage will likewise lead to an upward correction in prevailing wages to take account of the extra costs that workers must pay out of their pocket. To the extent that socialising some costs is more efficient than paying higher wages and leaving it up to the individual to meet the costs out of wages, employers as a class will be out of pocket when the latter happens. And vice-versa. The working class can't win either way.

Tax cuts are never a good thing for workers. That's why employers always support every tax cut. There is no such thing as a working class tax cut, workers don't pay tax.

Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list