Taxes Within Socialism

[The Vegan Marxist]

As a Marxist, I find taxes to be a very important element in allowing the community to help out on funding all that goes on, through a direct democratic process. The problem that people tend to have with taxes these days is, 1) there are way too many useless taxes; 2) a good amount of taxes is going into military funding; & 3) people don't really have a choice in where their taxes are going. 1 & 2 should be eliminated immediately within a Socialist economy. Which leaves in #3.

The way we should do this is, first of course find out how much taxes are needed by each individual, though with both #1 & 2 gone, it wouldn't be as much of a hassle. Once that is determined, then we should have each person be given a sheet of paper which gives out a list of everything that taxes are going into, & from there, beside the places or projects given on the sheet, the people should write down how much of their tax money goes into each business/project.

The problem that some people have is, of course, "what if the community chooses not to pay for a certain industry?" Of course, this would be a benefit to us, because it's direct democracy taking action, in which they show us that there's something wrong with this certain industry which we (the government) needs to fix. From there, we could issue a minimum mandatory tax to this industry to help the government fix such problem (if money is the only way of fixing this problem that is).

If taxes are to be implemented, then the people must have a voice within it, & this idea, to me, is the best way we can go about it, for we work as community to help rebuild our society & help each other out in the long run. What does everyone think?

[Psy]

Well a established command economy based on producing for use would not being taxes citizens but taxing output of production. For example taking steel from steel mills to put in resource pools for production plans like building a new railway line. Meaning we would not be funding production with money but with other production and planning would no be based on monetary costs (as they would not exist) but resource costs.

[Wolf Larson]

How can you tax wages that don't exist? Taxes with no wage and monetary system? In a economy of abundance labor wouldn't be taxed it would just be work, as in, a gift economy. Egalitarian non wage/monetary systems = anarcho communism. Everything is provided. Like today's freeways, EMT services [they actually send bills], emergency room care, fire service, police etc. Walk into a store and take what you need. That's it. Abundance.

Check out post scarcity anarchism. It's like the technocrat stuff but without the hierarchy. Admittedly it's somewhat Utopian but all egalitarian systems are compared to capitalism. It's basically Libertarian Marxisism but with the application of technology which didn't exist in Marx's time. I'm in the middle of The Ecology Of Freedom right now and find Bookchins stuff interesting. It's somewhat like the stuff we saw in the Zeitgeist films in regards to post scarcity economics but without all of the conspiracy theories. Anyway, I'm sure you're probably talking about taxes in a transitional phase in order to reach abundance not the be all end all point of abundance.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

This should be helpful:


Let us take, first of all, the words "proceeds of labor" in the sense of the product of labor; then the co-operative proceeds of labor are the total social product.

From this must now be deducted: First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up. Second, additional portion for expansion of production. Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc.

These deductions from the "undiminished" proceeds of labor are an economic necessity, and their magnitude is to be determined according to available means and forces, and partly by computation of probabilities, but they are in no way calculable by equity.

There remains the other part of the total product, intended to serve as means of consumption.

Before this is divided among the individuals, there has to be deducted again, from it: First, the general costs of administration not belonging to production. This part will, from the outset, be very considerably restricted in comparison with present-day society, and it diminishes in proportion as the new society develops. Second, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc. From the outset, this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society, and it grows in proportion as the new society develops. Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today.

Only now do we come to the "distribution" which the program, under Lassallean influence, alone has in view in its narrow fashion -- namely, to that part of the means of consumption which is divided among the individual producers of the co-operative society.

The "undiminished" proceeds of labor have already unnoticeably become converted into the "diminished" proceeds, although what the producer is deprived of in his capacity as a private individual benefits him directly or indirectly in his capacity as a member of society.

Just as the phrase of the "undiminished" proceeds of labor has disappeared, so now does the phrase of the "proceeds of labor" disappear altogether.

Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase "proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning.

What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it.

As far as people democratically determining the amount of resources that go to different industries by filling out forms, that would just be arbitrary and inefficient. Actual consumption patterns and need will determine that.

[Psy]

As far as people democratically determining the amount of resources that go to different industries by filling out forms, that would just be arbitrary and inefficient. Actual consumption patterns and need will determine that.
How would the construction of new consumption determine production? A coal power plant being built would not tell coal mines how much coal is going to be in demand when it goes online. Same with the plan to build a rail line, you would not even be able to debate the utility without looking at its resource cost.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

How would the construction of new consumption determine production? A coal power plant being built would not tell coal mines how much coal is going to be in demand when it goes online. Same with the plan to build a rail line, you would not even be able to debate the utility without looking at its resource cost.

Eh? When a new plant first goes online, sure, that'd be up to estimations, but after the average consumption pattern for coal is established then you simply take that as a base and adjust when necessary. If real actual consumption then determine that there is more need for steel vs coal, then that will be produced, as opposed to some arbitrary determination of the proportions in which labor is distributed. I don't know what I said about ignoring labor costs and I don't know what this has to do with whether allowing the population at large to determine investment in a direct and random manner is efficient.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Eh? When a new plant first goes online, sure, that'd be up to estimations, but after the average consumption pattern for coal is established then you simply take that as a base and adjust when necessary. If real actual consumption then determine that there is more need for steel vs coal, then that will be produced, as opposed to some arbitrary determination of the proportions in which labor is distributed. I don't know what I said about ignoring labor costs and I don't know what this has to do with whether allowing the population at large to determine investment in a direct and random manner is efficient.

How would health care go about then?

[Psy]

Eh? When a new plant first goes online, sure, that'd be up to estimations, but after the average consumption pattern for coal is established then you simply take that as a base and adjust when necessary. If real actual consumption then determine that there is more need for steel vs coal, then that will be produced, as opposed to some arbitrary determination of the proportions in which labor is distributed. I don't know what I said about ignoring labor costs and I don't know what this has to do with whether allowing the population at large to determine investment in a direct and random manner is efficient.
I agree but long production cycles for heavy industry and long life spans of fixed capital means the public is going to decide on which set of trade off they want with production plans and to adjust production based on economic plans.

For example the industrialization of the world would eventually become for the most completed thus the need for construction would drastically drop yet this can be predicted long in advanced.

[GatesofLenin]

Can't be any worse than the current capitalist tax system where the poorer people pay the highest taxes. The rich DO NOT pay their fair share when it comes to taxes.

[robbo203]

As a Marxist, I find taxes to be a very important element in allowing the community to help out on funding all that goes on, through a direct democratic process. The problem that people tend to have with taxes these days is, 1) there are way too many useless taxes; 2) a good amount of taxes is going into military funding; & 3) people don't really have a choice in where their taxes are going. 1 & 2 should be eliminated immediately within a Socialist economy. Which leaves in #3


Marx's view - or at least his later, more considered, view on taxes - was that these are not an issue that concerns workers. He was strongly influenced by Ricardo in coming to this conclusion. Here is what he said



“If all taxes which bear on the working class were abolished root and branch, the necessary consequence would be the reduction of wages by the whole amount of taxes which goes into them. Either the employers profit would rise as a direct consequence by the same quantity, or else no more than an alteration in the form of tax-collecting would have taken place. Instead of the present system, whereby the capitalist also advances, as part of the wage, the taxes which the worker has to pay, he [thecapitalist] would no longer pay them in this roundabout way, but directly to the state.” (‘Moralising Criticism and Critical Morality' in Marx and Engels’ Collected Works Volume 6)

There would of course be no taxes in a socialist society as Marx conceived it because it would be a moneyless economy so the issue of funding this or that activity simply would not arise. Calculation in kind would replace monetary accounting in what the German marxist, Otto Neurath called a "natural" economy which is what socialism would be