>--- 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.
I don't really see how the fact that the government transfers some of the net tax on wages to individual workers, based on need, undermines the analysis. Its the same as spending the tax revenue on social programs.
>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.)
I don't understand your accounting system here. What would profits on investments be treated as, if not profits?
> 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.
Well value added taxes are nominally taxes on vendors, everywhere except the USA. So everywhere else in the world governments have abandoned even the pretense that these are taxes on consumers. In the interests of a more efficient tax system.
>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.
That people have to pay taxes on profits I am not disputing. So the fact that people who earn income from investments pay taxes on this income in no way undermines the argument that they don't pay taxes on wages. However tax deductions based on family circumstances and individual need are simply an alternative form of welfare payment.
Here in Australia that has slowly been replaced with direct welfare entitlements. Likewise in much of Europe I believe (you would know more than me.) Nominal income taxes are higher, but there are welfare entitlements for workers according to need. Such as parenting allowances, child allowances and so on.
The US is very backward, in that it continues to try to make these transfer payments exclusively through the tax system. It presumably does this for ideological reasons. The previous Howard government tried to reverse the trend in this country too, with limited success. Personally I still receive some welfare payments that are officially titled "Family Tax Benefit", even though no-one in my family nominally pays any income tax to begin with.
So I suppose, according to your analysis, this is some kind of negative income tax that I am paying? Well, nominally, I guess it is. But you only need to scratch the surface in terms of analysing it, to see that it is in fact a welfare payment, paid from tax revenue. Just as other forms of "tax deductions" that wage earners are entitled to, are welfare entitlements paid by government out of tax revenue collected from employers.
In some cases these entitlements are conditional on filing a tax return, amongst other things. Employee tax returns are a process designed with the need in mind to have a check on employers, to make sure that they are paying the correct amount of income tax and correctly reporting the payroll figures on which the tax payable is calculated. Employee tax returns are reconciled with employer returns and actual tax paid. Most employees get some kind of payout in return for this service provided to the taxation authorities. Funded of course by taxes paid by employers.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas