> 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 emplo

> 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.