The property tax

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I think, without question, that while a monetary system still exists, the tax which should have the most emphasis placed on it, if not the only emphasis, should be the property tax. I say this for a few reasons.

1.) Sales taxes are avoidable through the internet and self-employment.
2.) Income tax would be obsolete, and it's a source of abuse.
3.) Corporate/Business taxes, again, are obsolete.

Included in property taxes would have to be facility taxes [water, heat, electricity].

[Die Neue Zeit]

That's an interesting thought. Even if Marx had a progressive taxation system as an immediate demand to bourgeois governments, that would be obsolete the moment the DOTP came into play.

However, you forget that, under the DOTP (in which a monetary system would still exist), such property would have fallen to public ownership, so property taxes may be a moot point. As for houses and precious possessions, that's another story.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I was more or less talking about houses. :) Thanks for the response.

[Demogorgon]

Property taxes are better in theory than in practice. They end up seriously hurting people who may have homes that are valued fairly high but have little income. Pensioners are the most obvious group here.

While we have a system of money, progressive income taxes need to be the main form of tax.

Another possible form of tax would be to charge "enterprises" (i.e. workers bodies, co-operatives etc) for the revenue generating assets they have access to.

All forms of regressive taxation have to be opposed though

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 08:54 am
I was more or less talking about houses. :) Thanks for the response.
^^^ But houses aren't "property," though. :huh:

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Hmm? The land they occupy is.

[MarxSchmarx]

3.) Corporate/Business taxes, again, are obsolete.


Another possible form of tax would be to charge "enterprises" (i.e. workers bodies, co-operatives etc) for the revenue generating assets they have access to.

Demogorgon is right. I don't buy your premises, GC.

Explain why corporate/business taxes will be obsolete when the workers control the industries.

[which doctor]

I think that, while the monetary system still exists, the objective we should place most emphasis on is destroying it.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 02:04 am
I think that, while the monetary system still exists, the objective we should place most emphasis on is destroying it.
That's something I think we all agree with. Hear , hear! :D

[BobKKKindle$]

Explain why corporate/business taxes will be obsolete when the workers control the industries.

Taxation is used to provide funds for government expenditure - this presupposes the existence of a private sector, composed of private corporations that operate with the objective of maximizing profit, and a section of the economy which is under the ownership of the government - the public sector. When all economic resources are subject to social control through a system of workers' councils, this distinction will cease to have any meaning, as the entire scope of economic activity will be based on meeting human needs. It is also possible that no system of monetrary transactions will exist under Socialism or a system will be used that is incompatible with the concept of taxation - for example, Labour Time Vouchers.


Hmm? The land they occupy is.

It is not private property as the home is not used to produce a good - it is not part of the means of production.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

If we are talking about socialism here, bobkindles is correct. Taxes are transfers of funds from the private sector of the economy to the state-owned sector of the economy. Once the private sector has been abolished, there is no longer a need to tax anyone - and it doesn't even make sense to tax anyone. In an economic system where all the means of production have the same owner (the people), taxation is the equivalent of taking your own money and giving it back to yourself.

Or, to put it another way: Why does the capitalist state need tax money? To buy things from private businesses, or to pay its employees (who in turn use that payment to buy things from private businesses). If there are no private businesses, the state needs no tax money. All workers are employed by the state, and all goods and services are sold by the state. Therefore, money (if it can still be called "money") flows from the state to individual workers and then back to the state. No taxation required.

Note: If you don't like the term "state," you can replace it with "collective" or anything else. The principles remain the same as long as all the means of production have the same owner.

[MarxSchmarx]

When all economic resources are subject to social control through a system of workers' councils, this distinction will cease to have any meaning, as the entire scope of economic activity will be based on meeting human needs.

Taxes are transfers of funds from the private sector of the economy to the state-owned sector of the economy

The "private sector/public sector" distinction is a red herring. A worker owned factory's council could reasonably want to reinvest its profits (i.e., revenue less costs, including wages) in, say, the latest Gizmo 4000 that produces safer products. But the "community" at large thinks the profits need to go into repairing pot holes.

Should this be at the discretion of the people working in the factory, or the community in which the factory is located? If the latter, suppose the workers refuse to hand over the funds, b/c they really believe the Gizmo 4000 is needed.

You have a disagreement between, say, the bioregional council and the factory syndicate about what "human needs" are best served by the factory's profit. Suppose we have some mechanism that adjudicates in favor of the community as against the workers. Then I would argue that the mere fact that the workers submit their "profit" to community spending at this point constitutes "taxation."

[MarshalAlex]

is it a smart move to put property tax as the new law of the Social-democrats party?

[syndicat]

The "private sector/public sector" distinction is a red herring. A worker owned factory's council could reasonably want to reinvest its profits (i.e., revenue less costs, including wages) in, say, the latest Gizmo 4000 that produces safer products. But the "community" at large thinks the profits need to go into repairing pot holes.

Should this be at the discretion of the people working in the factory, or the community in which the factory is located? If the latter, suppose the workers refuse to hand over the funds, b/c they really believe the Gizmo 4000 is needed.

if the revenue from sale belongs to this factory organization, this assumes a market economy. Also, the factory would be effectively the collective private property of the workers and is not genuinely socially owned.

Under a socialized economy there is bound to be an equivalent of taxation. That's because there is a need for a distinction between private consumption goods and collective or public goods. If there are free public goods such as education and health care, then the resources allocated to these industries must be carried by the collectivity and thus depend on the production of useful products by those who are actually working. Of course a part of the total work of the workforce is oriented to the maintenance and expansion of productive capacity, that is, investment, and a portion is directed to the production of what is consumed. but here i'm talking about the consumption portion of total benefit produced. not all of this is private consumption for the workers who produce the benefit. a portion goes to the industries that provide the public goods. This would include support for people unable to work, children's needs, and things provided to people irrespective of whether they work or not, such as free education, health care, public transit, etc. A portion of the the total benefit -- total social income -- generated by workers is thus transferred from those workers to a public purpose that includes support for non-workers. This transferred consumption benefit is the equivalent of taxation. it's actually a form of income tax.

[MarxSchmarx]

is it a smart move to put property tax as the new law of the Social-democrats party?


It probably depends on the form this is going to take. If it taxes primary residences or family farms, I say no, b/c then you owe taxes whether you have the means to pay for them or not. However, if it involves, say, commercial real estate, I say tax the bastards.


if the revenue from sale belongs to this factory organization, this assumes a market economy.

I suppose it depends on one's definition of a market economy. The revenue could still come back to the factory organization without the product having been sold "on the market" at a price set by supply and demand. I don't believe the worker's having sole discretion on how the money is spent is sufficient to constitute a market economy.


Under a socialized economy there is bound to be an equivalent of taxation. That's because there is a need for a distinction between private consumption goods and collective or public goods... Of course a part of the total work of the workforce is oriented to the maintenance and expansion of productive capacity, that is, investment, and a portion is directed to the production of what is consumed... not all of this is private consumption for the workers who produce the benefit. a portion goes to the industries that provide the public goods.

This might be accounting minutia, but I'd argue that "taxation" in a socialized economy arises at the distinction between investment and consumption, not in renumerative consumption of the workers. Suppose the workers agree, say, before consumption begins, that they will get a certain "salary" for their work. Any revenue generated above that salary goes to re-investment or bonuses (profit sharing?). Who controls what and how much is reinvested and where? If we settle disagreements between the workers and "the community" in favor of "the community", then this constitutes taxation. If the community goes after the worker's bonus, then syndicat's analysis is correct. But if the community goes after the investments that would otherwise expand productive capacity, then this is more like corporate/business taxes.

If the Red Utopia adopt a pareconist scheme, the workers won't want to reward themselves with bonuses borne of extra productive capacity. This is because we would be renumerating output rather than effort. Therefore, the "profits" of the factory will be subject to reinvestment, not bonuses. Therefore, according to the above, only corporate/business taxes will exist.

Or something like that. :rolleyes:

[syndicat]

not quite. that's because the investment is determined by the society as a whole through the social planning process. since the system of production is socially owned no one is being taxed. however, the budget for consumption is the totality of remuneration for work effort. but a portion of this goes to support the the public consumption goods, and thus is income taxation since income is consumption in such a society since no one owns means of production there is no transfer of income to capital.

to put this another way, consider the question, What determines the total consumption of a city or region? their entitlement to consume is dependent on total work effort of socially useful goods. In other words, due to the benefit provided to all of society by the work efforts, certain resources are allocated to their system of production, both investment in productive capacity as well as for consumption. the community can decide how it wants to split the consumption between private consumption entitlement and public goods consumption. To the degree that it expands public goods consumption, it reduces individuals' budgets for their private consumption. hence it is income taxation.

the size of the free goods sector may vary from region to region.

[MarxSchmarx]

certain resources are allocated to their system of production, both investment in productive capacity as well as for consumption...To the degree that it expands public goods consumption, it reduces individuals' budgets for their private consumption. hence it is income taxation.

Why won't this kind of "zero-sum" logic hold for different industries within the community, especially widget makers and the local fire station? After all, the different industries (like individuals) are consumers as well as producers. It would seem that to the extent that the factories "consume" capital (say machinery), whenever there is a conflict of interest between the factory and the socially useful goods, if the community wins then that's akin to the community's needs reducing the share available for individual consumption. Hence a business tax. I suppose we could call it a "income tax" on the worker's syndicate, but that's still not the same thing as an "income tax" on the end consumer.