> it is a demonstrable matter of fact that the working class in the
>United States pays a variety of taxes.
Nominally. But it is merely a legal fiction, in the sense that such taxes as are nominally payable by the working class are actually paid by the employing class. For example income tax, which is nominally paid by wage workers, but is in practice paid by their employers out of a nominal wage and is in reality an expense borne by employers who must ensure that the take-home pay is in line with the market price of wages irrespective of taxation component. Likewise sales tax, which is in every way except the technical legal sense paid by retailers, who can only expect to charge the market price for their product, no matter what tax they are required to send to the government.
This is easily understood. The bottom line is that as a rule employers pay the smallest wage they can get away with in the labour market. The smallest wage that workers will accept. Naturally, workers reckon the least they will accept by the take-home pay figure, not some fictional nominal wage that they never get their hands on. If it were otherwise, employers would be able to attract workers with a higher fictional nominal wage at the expense of a lower take-home wage. That doesn't happen, by wages it is clear we are talking about take-home wages.
Of course what is the minimum acceptable wage is determined by what a worker needs to live, which is influenced significantly by the prices of necessary goods and services. Which in turn is influenced by the level of services paid for out of taxes. So a reduction in government services will inevitably have to be made up for through higher wages. So even cutting government services to compensate for cuts in tax revenue is not an economic proposition in the long run. Certain levels of goods and services are simply essential to maintain the working class. It is often more economic to socialise some of these, such as health care, otherwise the cost to employers will be higher.
So you can scoff that it is demonstrable that this legal fiction about the working class paying tax is "a matter of fact", but I'm not talking about legal fictions. I'm talking about reality. We need to understand this reality, not swallow legal fictions.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell tas
>
>You go on to say: "If unable to pay increased mortgage, then also unable to
>pay any "increased" taxes. Obviously. Think it through man."
>
>I don't believe I've been obtuse on this point, but allow me to run through
>it with you. In the short run, homeowners unable to pay mortgages will
>default and the bank will foreclose, and they will live either in rented
>accomodation or with relatives or out of their cars or in a shelter. When
>the government starts trying to pay these trillions back, this will be
>deferred until their is economic growth again (assuming that Stiglitz isn't
>right, and we aren't headed for L-shaped growth). They can then apply
>higher taxes to all income groups. Just as with public sector pay cuts in
>the UK, the working class may be expected to restrict its consumption in
>order to pay for the effects of the crisis. I say 'may' - I would
>anticipate that every effort will be made by the charmingly named 'donor
>community' to ensure that this is exactly what does happen.
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk