From: "david jacob jurriaan bendien" <Jbendien-AT-globalxs.nl>
Subject: Re: M-TH: Re: Taxes?
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 16:27:51 +0100


	For what it is worth I agree with Gerald Levy remarks.  It is necessary to
concentrate on real incomes received and real expenditures made in
considering the taxation question.  Variable capital is in reality a
complex concept.  It is, to be more precise, the real (inflation adjusted),
after tax, take-home (disposable) pay of workers engaging in productive
labour, in money and/or in kind, plus the monetary equivalent of the
"social wage" elements in taxation or social security contributions made on
their behalf, which they actually receive from the state.  
	This is not so easy to measure precisely, for instance because (1) some
productive labour occurs in non-productive sectors and vice versa,
non-productive labour occurs in productive sectors, and (2) it is often
difficult to know or estimate what workers engaging in capitalistically
productive labour as a group actually receive as a social wage (you have to
make an estimate or imputation).  E. Tonak and A. Freeman worked on this
problem once and they know the difficulties of estimating it.  
	In Marx's ratio S/V, the "flow" value of variable capital must moreover be
used against the annual flow of surplus-value, but in S/C+V, the rate of
profit, the "stock" value of V is the important one, which is probably best
conceived as the year's flow divided by the number of production cycles
(rotations) during the year.  After all, employers do not pay the annual
gross wages "all at once", and they do not advance, or "tie up", a sum of
capital equal to a years' wages of the employees.  The reserve sum tied up
by the employer in variable capital (the "stock") is thus much smaller than
the annual outlay on wages. Employers generally recoup the value of wages
paid out after some period, like maybe five or six weeks out of revenues,
when the worker's output has been finished and sold off. Taxation revenue
receipts, or government pension funds contributions, are social capitals,
and not variable capital.
	I make these points because many academic economists still get that wrong
about Marx's political economy.  And they have a real effect for taxation
policy, about which I will write maybe another time if I have time.

Jurriaan Bendien
Amsterdam
----------
> From: Gerald Levy <glevy-AT-pratt.edu>
> To: marxism-thaxis-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
> Subject: M-TH: Re: Taxes?
> Date: Tuesday, November 18, 1997 2:05 PM
> 
> Lew wrote:
> 
> > Marx never got round to writing the planned book, but there are
> > scattered references to taxation and, indeed, his position can be
> > deduced from his theory of the state and his concept of labour power.
> 
> Marx, to my knowledge, never planned to write a book on taxes. However,
> that subject would have to be dealt with at length in a book on the state
> (book #4 in the 6-book-plan).
> 
> Also, I find your assertion about "deduction" to be a very poor method
for
> understanding Marx's perspectives. 
> 
> > To clarify: Marx treated wages as monies actually recieved by workers,
> > what the employers invested as variable capital, and not some
> > theoretical "gross" figure.
> 
> Variable capital is NOT the "monies actually received by workers."
> Rather, v is the sum of money capital paid for *productive
> labour*.  Thus, the money received by workers who contribute 
> unproductive labour would not be a component part of v but would rather
> represent a deduction from s.
> 
> Jerry
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---