NationStates

...What does that make wage labour?

The concept of taxation is often criticised for being a means by which the state acquires a portion of what an individual produces by their own labour without that person's express consent for it to do so. In this view, it's tantamount to the state stealing from its citizens by taking wealth from them without them wanting it to. But what makes living under a state that imposes taxes different from being employed by a for-profit organisation in this regard? It's mathematically impossible for an employee to be paid the full worth of their labour, whatever that may be, while still allowing their employer to generate a profit - that profit is, by necessity, subtracted from the total value to go to the employer, with the employee being paid what's left as a wage. If the employee was paid the total value, their labour would not be profitable to the company. However, at no point does the employee expressly consent to having a portion of their labour value taken from them by their employer - chances are they're just working for the company because they need a wage to sustain their own life, not because they had a realistic choice to not work for a company that pays its employees in this manner. They may not have the financial means to establish their own sustainable enterprise, in the same vein that a citizen who objects to being taxed lacks the political means to implement an economic system that doesn't impose taxes.

So now that I've said my piece, what do you all think? Is wage labour morally equivalent to taxation, or am I talking nonsense? If they are morally equivalent, does this mean both should be abolished, or is that a dumb and untenable idea? Do either of these even actually constitute "theft", and does that even matter?

Khoronzon wrote:[...] It's mathematically impossible for an employee to be paid the full worth of their labour, whatever that may be, while still allowing their employer to generate a profit - that profit is, by necessity, subtracted from the total value to go to the employer, with the employee being paid what's left as a wage. If the employee was paid the total value, their labour would not be profitable to the company. [...]

No, it isn't. I presume you use the labour theory of value to arrive at that conclusion. (If not, what theory did you use?) But the LTV is deeply flawed, not least because it does a terrible job as a predictive model of prices. As long as the economic theory underlying your assumption is unproven, we cannot presume that your assumption is true.

To my mind, it is not clear whether the appropriation of value from labor, either by capitalist exploitation or by state taxation, is more harmful than beneficial. It's easy to argue that such appropriation is a moral harm, but hard to argue that it is more harmful than beneficial as a rule. There are always circumstances where careful appropriation will yeild greater benefits to society as a whole than harm to the worker.

A better question by far is figuring out where the line on such, appropriation should be and why.

But I'm hardly an economist or political theorist.

I do not object to the principle of graduated taxation: for the just principle of ability to pay is not determined simply by the amount of income... I do not yet see the ground on which it can be justly held that any one description of property should be more heavily burdened than others, unless moral and social grounds can be shown first: but in this case the reasons drawn from those sources seem rather to verge in the opposite direction, for real property has more of presumptive connection with the discharge of duty than that which is ranked as personal...the severity of the blow is greatly aggravated in moral effect by the fact that it is dealt only to a handful of individuals

William Gladstone.

Taxation isn't theft. If you have a social government.
The tax you pay, is used for roads, road maintenance, hospitals, health care, elderly facilities, education (both schools as public education) public transport, environmental protection, garbage disposal, social assistance benefits etc.

The anecdote of two professors.
One Russian, one American. They discuss how much they earn.
The American earns 10× as much than the Russian. But. The Russian has more money to spend after all monthly expenses are deducted from the salary. (This anecdote was told in the 1980's cannot find it on the internet).

Wage labour is necessary because ppl don't have arable land to grow their own food. If you receive enough money to pay for all your expenses and let's you save some extra, I don't think it would be theft. But if 1 fulltime job isn't enough for food/ living / health care/ education/ housing etc, yes it is theft.

I pay enough* taxes on my taxable income, but it doesn't quite feel like theft knowing me paying taxes are the reason I can - among other things - get sick and pay barely anything to visit a doctor, get medicine and get better. I find it reassuring knowing my country has plenty of safety nets in case I unexpectedly hit a variety of possible setbacks in life, have children, etc.

Sure, a (currently) healthy adult like me probably won't benefit as much as the sick or unemployed, but that may not always be the case. The government should ensure its most vital resource - the people - are taken care of so they can continue to work and produce wealth for themselves, the company they work for (if applicable) and the nation. It's symbiosis, not parasitism.

*EDIT: Jumped the gun there, would need to calculate it since it works in levels.

One is not obligated to work for wages.

This is Marxism 101 but yes, you're correct. Private property is also theft. (Private property is different than personal property which is not theft.)

Ethel mermania wrote:One is not obligated to work for wages.

i mean you do if you dont want to starve

Lemon Soviet Socialist Republics wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:One is not obligated to work for wages.

i mean you do if you dont want to starve

You could be already wealthy, able to live off the grid, off your pensions and investments, or be a capitalist oppressor of the masses.

Well the surplus value of one's labor belongs to the individual in my opinion. As it stands currently, the surplus value goes to the businesses and mega corporations and they aren't really ethical at all with the money they steal from their workers.

Taxation is necessary sometimes like for roads and utilities, but some of it is theft as I hate seeing my tax money go to the militaries of american allies to bomb children and turn them into swiss cheese in Yemen, Palestine, and other places.

Governments could impose a usage-based pricing for people that use any kind of public infrastructure.

Hope I don't spend my extra money on cool doodads and run out of cash to walk on the pavement, though.

The difference is simple: Taxation is theft because it is backed by the threat of force. If you don’t pay taxes, you’re put in a cage. If you resist or try to escape, then they shoot you. Taxation is backed by a de facto death penalty.

Working for wages is voluntary. The government makes it very difficult to be self employed, but it is still possible.

This is the great division between free enterprise and government. One is voluntary, the other is backed by force. Do I like every business? Of course not! But for now, Google can’t compel my to work for them, or buy their products.

Tax isnt theft, Tax is Rent that you pay as your contribution to the social contract

Hum ans are a social species and the individual can not survive without the tacit protection of the group 'Society'.
the problem of capitalism is the concentration of exclusive rights and properties into the hands of a few, which directly undermines the social contract and which wage labour attempts to rebalance via its market mechanisms. That doesnt mean capitalism is wrong, society needs individuals to take risks and gain the rewards of that risk too but the ascendency of Social Good must be first..

Wage labor is almost like an abusive relationship. Oh yeah "you're free to leave" but where will you go?

Cetacea wrote:Tax isnt theft, Tax is Rent that you pay as your contribution to the social contract

Hum ans are a social species and the individual can not survive without the tacit protection of the group 'Society'.
the problem of capitalism is the concentration of exclusive rights and properties into the hands of a few, which directly undermines the social contract and which wage labour attempts to rebalance via its market mechanisms. That doesnt mean capitalism is wrong, society needs individuals to take risks and gain the rewards of that risk too but the ascendency of Social Good must be first..

I didn't sign any contract. I can't opt out - there is no frontier anymore.

Private proberty and wage labor are definitely theft, much more so than one could ever try to frame taxation as. Advocates for capitalism try to frame it as voluntary, but how voluntary is it when the alternative is homelessness?

Cordel One wrote:Private proberty and wage labor are definitely theft, much more so than one could ever try to frame taxation as. Advocates for capitalism try to frame it as voluntary, but how voluntary is it when the alternative is homelessness?

Then maybe there should be fewer taxes and regulations do that it is easier to start your own business.

In the frame of the United States, one was never, and has never, been guranteed the whole of one's wages, simply that any wages taxed by one's government, could not be so levied without the accompanying gurantee of representation in the government which has levied it.

No taxation without representation.

This is the only promise provided for in this regard, all other claims, at least as they pertain to this country, ignore the above at their own peril.

Khoronzon wrote:In this view, it's tantamount to the state stealing from its citizens by taking wealth from them without them wanting it to.

Fortunately we don't have to worry, because this view is stupid

Senkaku wrote:

Khoronzon wrote:In this view, it's tantamount to the state stealing from its citizens by taking wealth from them without them wanting it to.

Fortunately we don't have to worry, because this view is stupid

If it is morally wrong for one man to take the property of another by force, how is it morally right for the State to to do the same? Just because “The Majority” voted? Taxes are not voluntary. They are compelled by force. No different from the mob looting a business, or do you think that is okay also?

Merrill wrote:

Senkaku wrote:Fortunately we don't have to worry, because this view is stupid

If it is morally wrong for one man to take the property of another by force, how is it morally right for the State to to do the same? Just because “The Majority” voted? Taxes are not voluntary. They are compelled by force. No different from the mob looting a business, or do you think that is okay also?

Again, this is a fallacious statement.

If you are provided value in exchange for that which is levied, you are not being stolen from.

Seeing as I assume you use; sidewalks, parks, public schools, water, gas, electricity, trash, street lights, roads, bridges, and vote, you're receiving value.

Now, if you want to have a conversation about how your taxes are appropriated, and whether you should have a greater voice in that process, that will be an argument one could reasonably entertain.

This assertion that money taxed just disappears into a black hole, or is used to personally enrich those who work in government, is simply not born out by reality, however.

Khoronzon wrote:...What does that make wage labour?

The concept of taxation is often criticised for being a means by which the state acquires a portion of what an individual produces by their own labour without that person's express consent for it to do so. In this view, it's tantamount to the state stealing from its citizens by taking wealth from them without them wanting it to. But what makes living under a state that imposes taxes different from being employed by a for-profit organisation in this regard?

You don't have to work for a given employer, or for any employer at all for that matter. Not the case with taxes. As such the employer employee relationship is a consensual one, where the citizen government relationship is not.

Adriatican wrote:

Merrill wrote:
If it is morally wrong for one man to take the property of another by force, how is it morally right for the State to to do the same? Just because “The Majority” voted? Taxes are not voluntary. They are compelled by force. No different from the mob looting a business, or do you think that is okay also?

Again, this is a fallacious statement.

If you are provided value in exchange for that which is levied, you are not being stolen from.

Seeing as I assume you use; sidewalks, parks, public schools, water, gas, electricity, trash, street lights, roads, bridges, and vote, you're receiving value.

Now, if you want to have a conversation about how your taxes are appropriated, and whether you should have a greater voice in that process, that will be an argument one could reasonably entertain.

This assertion that money taxed just disappears into a black hole, or is used to personally enrich those who work in government, is simply not born out by reality, however.

Net value loss isn't the defining factor of theft, consent is.

If I burglarize a home, and take the family's television, it doesn't become not a theft if I leave them, say a case of 100 hot dogs.

I believe the morality of taxation comes down to what the taxes are used for. My thought is that if people are allowed to decide what their own taxes are put toward, they would be understanding and willing to pay those taxes. Not sure if is just me but I'd rather my taxes go toward the development of AI and preservation of the environment instead of allowing them to be used on a morbidly obese person's healthcare plan when they fail to take care of their own health problems.

I understand the government needs taxation to survive, but I believe the taxpayer should have the final say in what the government needs to prioritize with their own money.

I do not believe wage labour is immoral, unless the wages are too low. Wage labour is needed to keep everything in working order. Until we are able to be dependent on AI for many positions. Without wage labour, the roads wouldn't be paved, supermarkets would not be stocked, and buses couldn't transport people.