Lassalle and "fair tax" under "socialism"?

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/social-proletocracy-marx-t80882/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/economics-and-politics-t83454/index.html

Having said what I've had to say on the more secure (electronic) labour credit (the modern equivalent of the old labour-time vouchers), I recall a remark made by Led Zeppelin regarding the Lassallean concept of "undiminished proceeds of labour" (from the Gotha Programme itself, and critiqued by Marx).

Perhaps this is a good agitation-and-propaganda slogan (since Marx thought of "common fund" deductions only in terms of income), when coupled with a either a socialist concept of the bourgeois "Fair Tax" sales tax scheme in the US or this "poll tax" being raised as a concept by Paul Cockshott:

http://reality.gn.apc.org/polemic/socmod.htm


For ideological reasons we have advocated fixed poll taxes rather than proportional income taxes. This advocacy is a relatively secondary issue but we see it as having 3 advantages:

1. In the absence of significant income differentials, the redistributionist argument for income taxes in a capitalist economy is lacking.
2. Poll taxes maintain a high incentive to work, by paying workers the full value of their product at the margin.
3. Poll taxes emphasise the general duty to perform work for the community before work for oneself.

Thoughts on Lassalle's slogan?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Why would taxes be necessary at all under socialism, given that all earnings from the sale of goods and services already go to the state? The state gives out a certain amount of money or labour vouchers, and the entire amount returns to the state when people use it to make purchases. So the state already has an "income" from sales, and this "income" amounts to all the currency circulating in the economy.

[Lynx]

I'm afraid I don't understand the need for taxes either. Is the article you linked to describing the use of electronic labour credits?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Why would taxes be necessary at all under socialism, given that all earnings from the sale of goods and services already go to the state? The state gives out a certain amount of money or labour vouchers, and the entire amount returns to the state when people use it to make purchases. So the state already has an "income" from sales, and this "income" amounts to all the currency circulating in the economy.


I'm afraid I don't understand the need for taxes either. Is the article you linked to describing the use of electronic labour credits?

Yes, electronic labour credits, but I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that workers not producing consumer goods and services would have to be compensated, too.

[Lynx]

Whether or not they are given a pension, their needs would be met from a surplus. If there were no surplus (amount of goods & services produced by workers < amount of goods & services consumed by workers + non-workers) then rationing would be necessary. Or taxes! This would be my current understanding.

After all, when we speak of achieving communism, when use of labour credits is no longer needed due to people's confidence in having their efforts duly reciprocated, how would 'taxes' be collected?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Yes, electronic labour credits, but I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that workers not producing consumer goods and services would have to be compensated, too.
Right, and they would be compensated in labour credits like everyone else. Remember that as long as labour credits act like vouchers, in the sense that they are redeemed, cancelled or destroyed when used to make a purchase, they are also "created" when workers receive their wages (or pensions). When you get paid a wage or pension in labour credits, those labour credits don't have to come from somewhere else, like capitalist government money has to come from taxes. Labour credits are created on the spot.

Having said that, it is true that a socialist state needs to maintain an internal balance of payments, so that the amount of labour credits it gives out to workers is roughly equal to the amount they spend on consumer goods. Otherwise you get repressed inflation (or deflation).

Yes, in order to pay pensions or disability benefits to people who cannot work, you need to give those people labour credits. The value of those labour credits must come from somewhere, but the labour credits themselves don't have to. So instead of taxation, what would happen is something more akin to inflation. If the state gives out more labour credits than the total value of the work performed in the country, the labour credit effectively loses purchasing power, suffering inflation (which may or may not be repressed depending on the state's pricing policy).

Hmmm... you know, until now I thought it would be a good idea to have the inflation I described above, and no taxes. But maybe it would be better to have taxes and no inflation.

Edit: This thread should have been in Economics...

[Lynx]

Yes, in order to pay pensions or disability benefits to people who cannot work, you need to give those people labour credits. The value of those labour credits must come from somewhere, but the labour credits themselves don't have to. So instead of taxation, what would happen is something more akin to inflation. If the state gives out more labour credits than the total value of the work performed in the country, the labour credit effectively loses purchasing power, suffering inflation (which may or may not be repressed depending on the state's pricing policy).

Hmmm... you know, until now I thought it would be a good idea to have the inflation I described above, and no taxes. But maybe it would be better to have taxes and no inflation.
It would be better to have a surplus.
I don't see why a socialist state would worry about inflation and its effect on labour credit value, when materially, there is either a surplus, or rationing. Taxes would only be an option when there needs to be rationing.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yes, in order to pay pensions or disability benefits to people who cannot work, you need to give those people labour credits. The value of those labour credits must come from somewhere, but the labour credits themselves don't have to. So instead of taxation, what would happen is something more akin to inflation. If the state gives out more labour credits than the total value of the work performed in the country, the labour credit effectively loses purchasing power, suffering inflation (which may or may not be repressed depending on the state's pricing policy).

Hmmm... you know, until now I thought it would be a good idea to have the inflation I described above, and no taxes. But maybe it would be better to have taxes and no inflation.

Edit: This thread should have been in Economics...

Yeah (please LZ)...

Anyway, I was actually referring to people working in government research, heavy construction, and so forth. The folks producing consumer goods and services would be entitled to only a fraction of them (perhaps a significant fraction, depending on the amount of non-consumer work being performed), since there are workers elsewhere. This was what I meant by "taxation."

[Lynx]

Anyway, I was actually referring to people working in government research, heavy construction, and so forth. The folks producing consumer goods and services would be entitled to only a fraction of them (perhaps a significant fraction, depending on the amount of non-consumer work being performed), since there are workers elsewhere. This was what I meant by "taxation."
Naturally they would only consume a fraction of what they produce. Because of this, you can allocate resources (labour and energy) elsewhere.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Anyway, I was actually referring to people working in government research, heavy construction, and so forth. The folks producing consumer goods and services would be entitled to only a fraction of them (perhaps a significant fraction, depending on the amount of non-consumer work being performed), since there are workers elsewhere. This was what I meant by "taxation."
Right, but this isn't really taxation in the usual sense...

Bear in mind that the price of consumer goods will have to be equal to ALL the work that went into them, not just the work of the last few people in the production process. So the price of the car = all the work that went into that car, including the work of the miners who extracted the iron and a certain fraction of the work of the people running the power plants that provided the energy used to produce the car.

[Paul Cockshott]

Yes tax is necessary in a socialist economy.
Tax is, as Ricardo long ago showed, a part of the social surplus product, so those of you who say this is just surplus are also right.
However there has to be a rough balance in the budget of the socialist state or there will be serious inflationary problems as occured in the last couple of years of the USSR. These contributed to an atmosphere of crisis which made capitalist restoration easier.

The USSR relied overwheliming on indirect taxes to fund public expenditure. Two main taxes were the turnover tax ( essentially the profits of state industry, since state industry used a fixed markup on costs ). The second was the tax on alcholol.

Gorbachove debauched the finances of the USSR by firstly banning alcohol, which whilst defensible in its own right, meant that the state lost a significant source of revenue. Then, yielding to the pleas of pro capitalist reformers he allowed factories to retain their profits, loosing for the state the turnover tax as well. In consequence wages of those not employed producing consumer goods could only be met by printing banknotes.

The result was not a happy one.

[Lynx]

Would a poll tax be necessary for a Communist (or gift) economy?

[Paul Cockshott]

This relates to what would be free and what would be distributed on the basis of work done. In general I think the principle of to each according to their needs applies most directly to informational goods: music, literature, video, software since these can be digitally reproduced at minimal labour cost. Things made of matter rather than information are likely to need substantial labour, and have to be distributed accordingly.

[Lynx]

Does this mean wages will always be necessary?

(It is easier to imagine a transition to a gift economy using the energy accounting model.)

[Die Neue Zeit]

Off topic, but speaking of gifts, what will replace monetary gifts and lunch money, if not non-circulable labour credit?

[Lynx]

Off topic, but speaking of gifts, what will replace monetary gifts and lunch money, if not non-circulable labour credit?
More thoughtful gifts?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Well, for many years I have preferred monetary gifts, because I don't "consume" a lot (and because I don't want to risk getting a bad present :D ). ;)

[Lynx]

Ah but it's the thought that counts. Gifts for leftists, stock options for the former bourgoisie :p

[Die Neue Zeit]

Why would the former bourgeoisie have stock options (and yes, I know what they are and how they mathematically reduce the textbook trading price when exercised "in the money")? ;)

[Lynx]

All I really know about stock options is that the bourgeoisie seemed to want them, so... I'm thinking we should be especially generous when handing them out :D

[Die Neue Zeit]

Hardly... that would be tantamount to a privatization scheme (because they'll exercise their options to obtain stock - private money-property).

[Lynx]

Where would they be able to obtain private money or property in a socialist economy?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Right, and they would be compensated in labour credits like everyone else. Remember that as long as labour credits act like vouchers, in the sense that they are redeemed, cancelled or destroyed when used to make a purchase, they are also "created" when workers receive their wages (or pensions). When you get paid a wage or pension in labour credits, those labour credits don't have to come from somewhere else, like capitalist government money has to come from taxes. Labour credits are created on the spot.

Having said that, it is true that a socialist state needs to maintain an internal balance of payments, so that the amount of labour credits it gives out to workers is roughly equal to the amount they spend on consumer goods. Otherwise you get repressed inflation (or deflation).

Yes, in order to pay pensions or disability benefits to people who cannot work, you need to give those people labour credits. The value of those labour credits must come from somewhere, but the labour credits themselves don't have to. So instead of taxation, what would happen is something more akin to inflation. If the state gives out more labour credits than the total value of the work performed in the country, the labour credit effectively loses purchasing power, suffering inflation (which may or may not be repressed depending on the state's pricing policy).

Hmmm... you know, until now I thought it would be a good idea to have the inflation I described above, and no taxes. But maybe it would be better to have taxes and no inflation.

Edit: This thread should have been in Economics...

Wouldn't labor credits stomp out any individuals wanting to work by themselves? The problem I see with institutionalizing labor credits as the only means of "exchange" is that you're subjecting what qualifies as work to a very narrow definition. Will people not be allowed to work at home? That seems rather - authoritarian.

[Lynx]

Wouldn't labor credits stomp out any individuals wanting to work by themselves? The problem I see with institutionalizing labor credits as the only means of "exchange" is that you're subjecting what qualifies as work to a very narrow definition. Will people not be allowed to work at home? That seems rather - authoritarian.

You'd be registered as a business without employees. The labour credits you receive will be exchanged for credits in your name, so that you can use them. Authoritarian might apply to the setting of prices.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

You'd be registered as a business without employees. The labour credits you receive will be exchanged for credits in your name, so that you can use them. Authoritarian might apply to the setting of prices.
How does this work out, though? If I'm making silk fabrics at home, I could be producing one per day and be receiving 50 labor credits by reporting that I'm making 35.

When I receive others' labor credits, do I report it to the association/state and then I'm reciprocate a different number in my name?

[Lynx]

How does this work out, though? If I'm making silk fabrics at home, I could be producing one per day and be receiving 50 labor credits by reporting that I'm making 35.

When I receive others' labor credits, do I report it to the association/state and then I'm reciprocate a different number in my name?
Can you rephrase the first sentence? its unclear
(If you are referring to how you declare your labor-time, bear in mind that an excessive claim might price you out of the market)

When you receive electronic labor credits they are either transferred to your account or they are destroyed and new ones are created in your name. I believe you would receive the same amount (perhaps minus 'taxes').

I'm reading Towards A New Socialism a 2nd time, to understand how prices = labour time (initially) and then are adjusted to compensate for supply/demand imbalances (the alternative being fixed prices with rationing/surplus inventory).

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I think I understand now.

I'm still not sold on the idea of equating time to money, but I'll read the book.

[Lynx]

Chapter 8 introduces the concept of the market-clearing price. As an end producer I imagine you would be receiving information to help you determine that price. Whether you would be free to set the price is another question.

The only alternative to LT vouchers I've seen so far is energy accounting, and that may not be so much an alternative as an additional measure.