4 ms·

> No, you spent $50,000 buying labor vs. $50,000 aquiring machines and parts to build widgets, your taxes and the taxes on the people you bought from would be h

> No, you spent $50,000 buying labor vs. $50,000 aquiring machines and parts to build widgets, your taxes and the taxes on the people you bought from would be higher in the labor case. Why is that? The taxes paid would be the same here. If we say the rate is 10%, labour case would pay a straight $5,000. In the machine case the business selling it might profit $5,000, so they would pay $500, and $25,000 in labour costs to produce the machine, so they would pay $2,500, and $20,000 in materials gets divvied up in the same manner, leaving another $2,000. 500 + 2500 + 2000 = $5,000. > No, the human equivalent of capital gains is capital gains Okay, but then from that perspective the capital gains tax rate is always the same capital gains rate no matter what. The earlier comment suggested there were different rates. I guess that isn't the case.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> The taxes paid would be the same here. No, they wouldn't, because payroll taxes exist, and are paid by both the employer and employee. > Okay, but then from that perspective the capital gains tax rate is always the same capital gains rate no matter what I was taking issue with your misuse of “human” for what ia properly “labor” (which is as much a human means of relating to a capitalist econony as capital is), and also discussed what the labor equivalent of capital gains taxes (which are very much not the same.)
- randomdata 3y ago
  > No, they wouldn't, because payroll taxes exist, and are paid by both the employer and employee. Here that is not the case. The employer pays half of an employee's contribution into a retirement and insurance fund, but that is not a tax. That is additional compensation provided to the employee. What's the logic behind taxing payroll? > I was taking issue with your misuse of “human” for what ia properly “labor” Labour is the productive output of a human. Capital gains is a property of the exchange of capital. The closest analog to capital gains with respect to labour is in the sale of humans (i.e. slave trade). You haven't taken issue with anything, you've only repeated that it is silly to try and talk about capital gains and labour together. They are not meaningfully compared or contrasted.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> The taxes paid would be the same here. No, they wouldn't, because payroll taxes exist, and are paid by both the employer and employee. > Okay, but then from that perspective the capital gains tax rate is always the same capital gains rate no matter what I was taking issue with your misuse of “human” for what ia properly “labor” (which is as much a human means of relating to a capitalist econony as capital is), and also discussed what the labor equivalent of capital gains taxes (which are very much not the same.)

randomdata 3y ago
> No, they wouldn't, because payroll taxes exist, and are paid by both the employer and employee. Here that is not the case. The employer pays half of an employee's contribution into a retirement and insurance fund, but that is not a tax. That is additional compensation provided to the employee. What's the logic behind taxing payroll? > I was taking issue with your misuse of “human” for what ia properly “labor” Labour is the productive output of a human. Capital gains is a property of the exchange of capital. The closest analog to capital gains with respect to labour is in the sale of humans (i.e. slave trade). You haven't taken issue with anything, you've only repeated that it is silly to try and talk about capital gains and labour together. They are not meaningfully compared or contrasted.