I was rereading the communist manifesto and in Chapter 2 Marx called for a heavy progressive or graduated income tax on capital. Why? He doesn't call for wealth redistribution. Wealth redistribution does not make sense under the capitalist mode of production because proletariat still have to give their money to bourgeoisie when purchasing commodities.
Why is he calling for an income tax? To use on what? What will it accomplish?
Another thing, Engels writes in chapter one. >By proletariat, the class of modern wage labourers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labour power in order to live.
By labour power he means the abstraction of human labor into something that has exchange value, correct? So a handicraftsmen is not proletariat because he does not sell his labor power, but rather the commodity he produces, and thus is not alienated from his labor. Whereas say, a carptenter who works in a firm is a proletariat because he sells his labor power to the company, rather than what he produces? Where does unproductive labor, such as the faux frais of production fall in here?
>Why is he calling for an income tax? To use on what? What will it accomplish? Stimulate the economy, which in this case means the redistribution of the products of capital to lower classes and the public treasury. Of course it ends up back in capital's pocket, but it also ends up back in the pockets of the proles, all while the economy theoretically keeps growing and becoming more efficient, thereby (in theory) increasing living standards for everyone until you get to post scarcity.
Jeremiah Watson
>but it also ends up back in the pockets of the proles Not what he says in the gotha kritik
William Brooks
>Where does unproductive labor, such as the faux frais of production fall in here? Faux frais and unproductive labor are seperate concepts. Unproductive labor would be the handicraftsman commodity dealer you gave as an example.
What is the relevance of faux frais of production?
Julian Long
What does he say there? That it goes into bureaucrats pockets and solidifying the state? How is a handicraftsman unproductive labour?
Mason James
>What does he say there? That it goes into bureaucrats pockets and solidifying the state? user is clearly remembering wrong, Marx only writes against the concept of 'fair redistribution' put forth by the program. >How is a handicraftsman unproductive labour? Because selling a commodity you make yourself does not make produce surplus value for a capitalist.
Juan Bell
>Faux frais and unproductive labor are seperate concepts What surplus value does a cashier produce?
Cameron Roberts
>income tax >on capital Marx was a retard simple as
>but it also ends up back in the pockets of the proles No it absolutely does not. The whole point of money is facilitating exchange. Cash money redistributed to a prole is only a claim on a commodity and nothing more. It doesn't accomplish anything else other than guaranteeing someone a commodity.
Ryder James
Money itself can be capital.
William Myers
So that no individual or group of likeminded individuals can become more powerful than the state. They therefore kneecap you at every possible avenue whereby you might improve yourself so that you can't gain any advantage against them.
Jordan Butler
>Why is he calling for an income tax? To use on what? What will it accomplish? Revitalize the consumer market and make venture investment more productive, which serves to keep the means of production in a dynamic, developing state, as opposed to a stagnation favoured by top ruling class.
Heavy income tax serves to keep the capitalist system active by directing a portion of surplus value towards infrastructure and public spending, which can be utilized by new players to game the system and change the rules a bit, aiming to profit in process, so the game keeps changing, until supposedly one day the rules change so much it becomes a valid move to flip the table.
Without it, the system trends towards maximum disparity and status quo - 3,5 Jew Niggers own everything, everyone else owns nothing and are literally whipped niggers, while the fat fuckers just speculate on the basic commodities and banking between themselves, and nothing ever happens, it's a stable dead end. Though everyone being whipped niggers would also cause a revolution per Marx, he declines it as a regressive move, while income taxation is likely to work as the governments need it to survive, and the fat fucks eventually need the governments.
So, digging their own grave just as planned.
>So a handicraftsmen is not proletariat because he does not sell his labor power, but rather the commodity he produces, and thus is not alienated from his labor. If he does that without using any tools, any marketing platforms or solutions, or any currency, and manages to exist and prosper with this arrangement - then yes, he's not a prole. Otherwise no, as he still depends on means of production that he doesn't own - if he sells on Etsy, he depends on Etsy, while the Etsy doesn't depend on him, so Etsy and squeeze his balls as far as it can. If he can manage just on his own well good for him.
Asher Mitchell
The problem is that 99,999% cannot exist and prosper in any conceivable market economy with this arrangement. This handicraftsman would be a very lucky exception.
>Where does unproductive labor, such as the faux frais of production fall in here? "Unproductive labor" refers to labor that is not productive specifically for the capital. Everything that does not contribute to the capital growth is "unproductive labor". If you build yourself a nice home on our own land using your own materials and expertize that you use to live off the grid with your family - it's unproductive labor, as it does not contribute any value to the economy, and therefore no opportunity to extract surplus value.
Faux frais is not unproductive labor - it's maintenance of capital operations that is too complex and entwined with the specific structure of capital to deduce or calculate it's exact productivity and return on investment.
Elijah Peterson
you can either tax income or capital income tax on capital is oxymoron
Justin Butler
>income tax on capital is oxymoron This is OP's shit phrasing.
>Cash money redistributed to a prole is only a claim on a commodity and nothing more. It doesn't accomplish anything else other than guaranteeing someone a commodity. *guaranteeing a commodity exchange. Both the prole and the fatty who sells that commodity to the prole benefit.
Dominic Rogers
>Faux frais is not unproductive labor - it's maintenance of capital operations that is too complex and entwined with the specific structure of capital to deduce or calculate it's exact productivity and return on investment. But it does not add production, storage for avoiding deterioration of a product is necessary for a product but it does not add to capital
Not a retard, a Jew. Every single thing which comes from the Jews is bad.
Dominic Thompson
>what's the point of income tax To ensure one man, group or entity of any kind cannot become more powerful than the state.
Jonathan Roberts
Quoting myself because I am always right. I've been on Any Forums sine 2015 and Any Forums since 2006, so I am an expert in all matters Hitler and shemales.
Elijah Bell
>But it does not add production We cannot know that. Maybe it does in some cases, maybe it doesn't in others. It's essentially risk management.
>storage for avoiding deterioration of a product is necessary for a product but it does not add to capital True, IF you as a capitalist can still sell the product and collect revenue without using said storage. If you DO need that storage/accounting/money laundering/transaction processing to eventually make the sale and gain access to the surplus value, than those functions are as much vital parts of the production process as the loom that weaved the proverbial bolt of cloth. But we do know that loom is necessary in every case that is not a literal scam, but we do not know how necessary is any amount of storage,e or accounting, or money laundering.
Uh, yeah, but in this case the thing is - you are in a thieves' den. You can't win by declaring everyone around you to be thieves unless you have your own SWAT team at the door, otherwise the thieves just ignore you at best or throw your body into the trunk at worst. Do you have a SWAT team at the door?
Cooper Morales
>What's the point of income tax? to limit social mobility as much as possible. if you actually got your hands on your whole income, then being smart with it can make a huge difference. meanwhile, if I take 40% of your wage before you even saw a single penny, your leeway is much more limited. a large chunk of it will go towards necessities and the leftovers you could use to try and make it are so minor that even a really good return like 15% APY will hardly matter because the base stock it's applied to is so small.
