--- Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
> One could make a fairly sophisticated argument that
> taxes on workers are
> _only_ a _method_ by which surplus value is taxed.
> So the appearance
> Bill calls attention to (take-home pay as opposed to
> nominal pay) is in
> fact reality. It is a tax on profits taking the
> juridical form of a tax
> on the workers.
[WS:] yes, but argument would be fundamentally flawed.
First, how much of your pay is taxed depends on many socio-economic variables, investment decisions you make etc. so it is possible to avoid paying the tax on your wages, or at least a significant part of it - and thus get that part of surplus value created by labor. Second, not only wages are taxed, but also investment returns (which are not a part of the surplus value, at least in standardd economic accounting.) An then there is also the value added or sales tax - which is a tax on spending, not income. The leatter is added to the price and can be avoided under certain circumstances.
Thus the fact that an individual can avoid paying at least some taxes on his/her wages and that other transactions, not just wages are also taxed show the falsehood of the argument that all taxes are on surplus value produced by labor.
Wojtek
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ