Log in

View Full Version : Tax in socialism and proletriat question



Noah
27th December 2005, 00:59
Hey guys,

In socialism will the people (meaning all classes) have a higher tax rate than today's taxrate (I am talking about England's tax rate).

The reasons I was thinking this is because the government will need to spend alot on the workers, like free education and so on... So this will cost them alot of money.

Also I have another question....

Is a doctor considered a proletarian?

Doctor's get paid alot of money in England. My dad is considered 'petit bourgeois' because he sells his goods in a market stall (because he is a craftsmen) but family friends who are in the Medical field get paid ALOT more than he does and are much wealthier and materialistic.

Noah

OkaCrisis
29th December 2005, 18:28
Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 08:59 PM
Hey guys,

In socialism will the people (meaning all classes) have a higher tax rate than today's taxrate (I am talking about England's tax rate).

The reasons I was thinking this is because the government will need to spend alot on the workers, like free education and so on... So this will cost them alot of money.
I don't think that leftists promoting Socialism today are promoting increases in personal tax rates, so much as increasing the rates of corporate taxation for companies operating within the country.

Perhaps though, it would also result in a higher rate of taxation for the upper class, but not necessarily for the lower and middle classes, who, if they were taxed any more heavily, would be forced to lessen their consumption.
And because the lower and middle classes are so populous, they provide the 'market' for goods (mass) produced under the system... If they could no longer afford the goods, the economy would be doomed... Well, it certainly would be under the Capitalist system, which of course runs on market economics.

So in the transitory nature of a Socialist state, the markets would have to remain for a time... So increasing the taxation rates of the consumers would not be good 'economics'.

But then, the abolition of the Market system all together would also abolish taxation, and goods would be available to everyone, regarldless of their ability to pay for them, and without having to pay for them through taxes.

If anyone has any, more coherent, ideas about this, please feel free to add/correct/criticise.


Is a doctor considered a proletarian?
I think it depends on how much money that doctor is making. A PhD certainly can live very poorly if they don't find the funding for research, and some MDs who maybe work at small practices also feel the burn of "proletarian" existence.

It's situational. It depends.

Enragé
29th December 2005, 18:57
In socialism will the people (meaning all classes) have a higher tax rate than today's taxrate (I am talking about England's tax rate).

The reasons I was thinking this is because the government will need to spend alot on the workers, like free education and so on... So this will cost them alot of money.

Basicly, the people (as in all classes, since the proletariat is the majority anyway) decide what happens. Businesses will be brought under the control of local councils, and a high-council of some sorts which can be recalled at any moment will be created to deal with the big problems (war, famine) should any arise. The transition to communism is to be made as soon as possible, in which case there would be no money, hence no taxes, all is for all, blahblahblah.


Is a doctor considered a proletarian?

No.
A doctor is a petty bourgeois.

which doctor
29th December 2005, 19:21
A doctor doesn't really own any means of productiom, so I would also consider most doctors petty bourgeois. However often times a doctor can choose to set his own rates. If he charges low rates to help out the poor then he might be a member of the proletariat, just trying to sell his skills while making very little profit for himself. Also if a doctor works for an organization like Médecins Sans Frontières, then I would consider them a proletatiat as well.

Enragé
29th December 2005, 23:06
hmm well anyway i think this classification of people is really unnecessary....when they are on our side and support us, they're on our side..no matter what they were pre-revolution

Storming Heaven
30th December 2005, 03:50
I don't think we can predict whether a Socialist state will have a higher or lower tax rate than a capitalist one because there are too many unknowns involved in such a prediction. It is worth noting however, that tax would be redundent in a society based on collective rather than private ownership.


Is a doctor considered a proletarian?


At the end of the day, it depends on whether he owns his means of making a living, and particularly whether he is an employee or an employer. Basically the situation seems to be this: employees are proletarians, employers are the bourgeoisie and the 'self-employed' are petit-bourgeoisie.

Severian
30th December 2005, 09:00
Originally posted by Storming [email protected] 29 2005, 09:50 PM
I don't think we can predict whether a Socialist state will have a higher or lower tax rate than a capitalist one because there are too many unknowns involved in such a prediction.
We can say something based on the experience of post-capitalist societies so far.


It is worth noting however, that tax would be redundent in a society based on collective rather than private ownership.

Exactly!

In societies where most of the means of production have been nationalized, the state draws its revenue from that ownership. The value produced by workers' labor, that would have been capitalists' profits, becomes the property of society as a whole. It goes to meet society's priorities...whatever those may be.

(As Noah says, some of these will increase greatly after a revolution. Some will decrease....Marx made the point, in "The Civil War in France", that the cost of state administration can be greatly reduced if state employees are paid workers' wages, not the inflated bureaucratic salaries some big shots "earn" under capitalism.)

Most postcapitalist countries have had little taxation. One of the big headaches of people trying to restore capitalism in Russia, etc., has been trying to set up a tax system....last I heard they were still having a lot of trouble with it. Partly 'cause people have no habit of paying taxes.

Cuba's national assembly, and workplace assemblies around the countries, debated setting up an income tax system in the "special period" after the collapse of the USSR, in 1994 or so...they hadn't had one previously. They ended up establishing an income tax....on foreign companies investing in Cuban joint ventures, on self-employed people, on independent farmers, but not on wages. Since the first two categories of people didn't exist before the "special period", there was no need for an income tax before that.

In Cuba also, bureaucratic types complain about the lack of a "tax culture."

The tax question is only a major question when there are major elements of capitalism or a need to smooth out the inequalities resulting from bourgeois modes of distribution.

The communist policy on taxes, when they are needed, is simple: a steeply graduated income tax falling on the wealthier parts of the population. In the U.S., I'd say this should start around $50,000. Communists should not be for taxing working people, period, at all.


At the end of the day, it depends on whether he owns his means of making a living, and particularly whether he is an employee or an employer. Basically the situation seems to be this: employees are proletarians, employers are the bourgeoisie and the 'self-employed' are petit-bourgeoisie.

A clear and concise expression of a certain view on this, but I think it does not entirely cut it in the modern world. There's been a tremendous growth of the "new middle classes" - high-salaried professionals, like doctors and lawyers, who conditions of life and class interests have little or nothing in common with workers'. IMO even if these people are employees, living on a salary, they cannot be considered workers. They have something to sell besides their labor-power....in the case of doctors, in many countries there is an artificially maintained shortage which lets them charge a monopolistic price for their services.

Storming Heaven
1st January 2006, 21:48
There's been a tremendous growth of the "new middle classes" - high-salaried professionals, like doctors and lawyers, who conditions of life and class interests have little or nothing in common with workers'. IMO even if these people are employees, living on a salary, they cannot be considered workers. They have something to sell besides their labor-power....in the case of doctors, in many countries there is an artificially maintained shortage which lets them charge a monopolistic price for their services.

I would still maintain that most of the so-called 'middle class' are workers (because they draw their income from wages or salaries rather than ownership), though as you point out their class interests have little in commen with the majority of workers. I think this is because they are effectivly bribed (with high salaries) by the capitalist class. Corperate managers are a case in point. They are paid salaries and employed by a company's owners. Why then do they not act in the interests of fellow workers and gice everyone a pay rise? Because they are employed to act in the interests of the owners. In a system where the owners have power, their (somewhat extravagent) livelihoods are also under threat if they do not act in their master's interests.