Income tax and deductions come from my gross income, my full earnings according to the agreed-upon wage — NOS4A2

We've just established that what was 'agreed upon' included you paying a portion to tax.

Let's try this. You sign a contract promising to build a bridge. The renumeration is $10,000 of which you must give $1,000 to compensate the landowner. Now the client decides that actually they'll compensate the landowner directly. Are you still entitled to the full $10,000? Who would think that? It's obvious that an expense that was to come from your renumeration after you received it is now coming before you receive it. Either way only $9,000 was ever yours to take home.

It's the same with tax. The arrangement between you, your employer, and the government is that you'll receive $x, 20% of which you'll give to the government. If you don't then give that portion you're breaking the terms of your contract, as understood by both parties at the time of signing it. There's acres of case law on unwritten understandings that underwrite contracts.

If you want a without-tax wage, you need to tell your employer that you don't intend to pay tax. Your employer may then want to renegotiate your wage under these new terms because they know they'll have additional expenses arising from your failure to pay said taxes.

To say you'll keep the full wage you're changing the terms under which the contract was negotiated. Essentially you're being deceitful, because your keeping renumeration negotiated under one set of circumstances despite knowing that key elements of those circumstances have changed. Does that sound like honorable behaviour?

I don’t agree that the “agreed upon wage” includes some implicit condition that I pay a percentage of it in taxes. If I refuse to pay taxes I don’t owe the employer a percentage of my wage. The exchange of tax between me and the government has nothing to do with the employer.

The government sees what I make in income, it takes a percentage of that income. That’s the exchange.

I don’t agree that the “agreed upon wage” includes some implicit condition that I pay a percentage of it in taxes. If I refuse to pay taxes I don’t owe the employer a percentage of my wage. The exchange of tax between me and the government has nothing to do with the employer. — NOS4A2

It's no use just repeating what you'd like to be the case, this isn't an opinion poll, it's a discussion site. If you're not going to discuss the issue then there's no point posting.

The amount your employer offered was offered in the full knowledge that a fixed proportion (as counted against your total income), would go to the state. If you renege on those terms you renege on the agreement. There's no opinion to be had on the matter, those are just the facts of the case.

It's no different to inflation, or currency changes, or RPI indexing... the value of money is relative to the circumstances of the country of which it is a currency. A country in which no one pays tax is different to one in which everyone pays tax. So the value of your labour, in whatever currency, will be different in those different circumstances. You are not valued at $2,000 by your employer and then the government takes $400, you are valued at $2,000 because the government take $400. If you change the economic circumstances in which the valuation takes place you'll change the valuation. It's really primary school level economics. Not getting it is not really an option for having a serious adult conversation.

Do you hold that an employer includes what I will inevitably owe in income taxes into the wage? I don’t see how that can work.

Do you hold that an employer includes what I will inevitably owe in income taxes into the wage? I don’t see how that can work. — NOS4A2

Yes. Your taxes pay for services which, if you don't pay for them, the company might become liable for. This changes the economic circumstances in which the valuation of your labour took place and so changes the value.

We'll try another route. Why do you think the employer picks the figure they do for your wage?

If I miss a day, and therefor have less income, should my wage go down as well?

If I miss a day, and therefor have less income, should my wage go down as well? — NOS4A2

Your income is your wage, the question doesn't seem to make sense.

If I miss a day, have less income to tax, and therefor have less tax to pay, should the hourly wage change to reflect that?

If I miss a day, have less income to tax, and therefor have less tax to pay, should the hourly wage change to reflect that? — NOS4A2

Why would it? Your tax is a rate, averaged over a fixed time period. Your employer could re-negotiate your wage daily, or even hourly, but the cost of doing so would exceed any savings made from a more accurate valuation, so they renegotiate yearly, or per contract. The frequency of renegotiation is irrelevant to the fact that external circumstances affect those negotiations whenever they occur.

I just don’t see how that works. If the income tax is the product of a tax rate times the taxable income, it is impossible for an employer to know what I will be paying in income tax in order to factor it into my hourly wage.

I just don’t see how that works. If the income tax is the product of a tax rate times the taxable income, it is impossible for an employer to know what I will be paying in income tax in order to factor it into my hourly wage. — NOS4A2

They don't need to. They only need to know enough to make a fair assessment of their liabilities. Like any pricing or valuation, it's an estimate not a formula. What you do in declaring the whole wage packet your own is lie to your employers about the circumstances they are using to make their estimate. They're expecting a rough proportion to go to the state. That knowledge forms part of their assessment of your value to them. If you lie about that bit, you're deliberately deceiving them as to the circumstances so as to obtain more money. That's theft.

If you want a without-tax wage, you need to tell your employer that you don't intend to pay tax. Your employer may then want to renegotiate your wage under these new terms because they know they'll have additional expenses arising from your failure to pay said taxes. — Isaac

Eh? Clarify, please? Or point me back to it, because I don't see it. What additional expenses does an employer have?

Or are you supposing that employers don't withhold for income taxes? Which failure is, I'm pretty sure, a crime.

Many things determine wage— job requirements, pay standards in your industry, the size of the company, geographic location, supply and demand—but this is the first time I’ve hear income tax was a determining factor. It’s an interesting argument but I’ll just have to disagree.

Longer answer later, I have to go out. Short answer -all the things that income tax currently pays for. Many of them the employer benefits from. If you're not paying for them, they'll have to, so you're less valuable an asset.

What additional expenses does an employer have? — tim wood

Income tax pays for (among other things) health services, environmental protection, unemployment benefit, policing, and utilities.

When determining your value as a labourer, your employer assumes that you'll get better rapidly if ill, that you'll be unlikely to get ill in the first place, that you'll not be beset by social unrest, and, most importantly, that he can fire you when times are tough and then re-hire you (or someone like you) from a pool of ready-to-work potential employees when he wants to grow his business. He also assumes that you're going to be able to travel freely to work, freely able to acquire the resources you need (water, food etc).

If you don't come with all of those benefits, you're a less valuable asset and so worth less. If you don't pay a portion of your wage in income tax (by law, not by deception), then you don't come with all those benefits. Of course, you might, they might be provided by charity, or they might be something you arrange privately, but then the employer has to take a gamble. a gamble is worth less than a certainty, so you're a less valuable asset.

@NOS4A2 wants to take the value his employer has determined under the assumption he's the former type of asset, but deceive his employer by actually being the latter type. He wants to defraud his employer out of the difference in value between the two, i.e. steal from him.

When determining your value as a labourer, your employer — Isaac

...in many cases pays what the market will bear. Period. As to which he chooses, he will choose the more attractive to him - if he has a choice.

I do not understand

If you don't pay a portion of your wage in income tax (by law, not by deception), then you don't come with all those benefits. — Isaac

As to

travel freely to work, freely able to acquire the resources you need (water, food etc). — Isaac

Eh? Freely able? What in the world does that mean?

If you have a cogent point to make, please make it simply.

When determining your value as a labourer, your employer — Isaac

...in many cases pays what the market will bear. Period. — tim wood

'The Market'? Where does it get its prices from?

As to which he chooses, he will choose the more attractive to him - if he has a choice. — tim wood

Yes. That's the point I'm making. I've outlined which is the more attractive, it's (on average) the one with the safety net, paid for by taxes.

As to

travel freely to work, freely able to acquire the resources you need (water, food etc). — Isaac

Eh? Freely able? What in the world does that mean? — tim wood

Nothing complex, just without hindrance. As in his water comes out of a tap, not a well 6 miles away.

If you have a cogent point to make, please make it simply. — tim wood

I have tried. If you ask about that which confuses you, I'll try to explain. I can't simply 'make it simply' because I don't know in advance what you'll find too complex.

So to perhaps finish up this thread, I’d like to defend the claim that the most powerful force is dogma.

Whether the corporate sector or the state, there are human beings making decisions. These decisions happen against the background of attitudes, beliefs, perceptions — which are shaped by culture, but especially the educational and media systems.

Behind all of this, and the basis for religion and culture, are answers (tacit or otherwise) to universal human questions, but especially the question of questions— which defines philosophy: the question of being.

What is a human being? Human nature? Is greed the most important human characteristic? Are we simply self-interested entities trying to accumulate wealth? Are we creatures of God? The rational animal? Spirits? Minds?

What is good? What is happiness?

What *is*?

We are what they want us to be. The solution is being a fish who swims countercurrent. All of these powerful (including the press and media which are even worse...) entities want to brainwash us without tolerance. It is difficult living alone and not been caught by these elements but I think is worthy to give it a try.
If I believe in something, I do it because I want not forced. If I learn a new language, is due to I want to not because "laboral opportunities"
It is time to go back to Greek-Roman Era where the culture and individualism were more respected.

What is happiness? — Xtrix

This is a good question and a purpose Aristotle used to teach back in Ancient times. I do not how to answer but I defend it is not related to materialism as buying a big car/house... Like sadly the social media wants to show us.

Whether the corporate sector or the state, there are human beings making decisions. These decisions happen against the background of attitudes, beliefs, perceptions — which are shaped by culture, but especially the educational and media systems. — Xtrix

I want to add something a little less broad and abstract to fill this in: the present day.

What's really happening in the world today? How does it function? How is it organized?

It seems to me that when looked at from a perspective that highlights class, there is little question that the political and economic ruling class are nearly all of one ideology: we deserve to be in power, and deserve even more power.

The nation state has replaced the monarchy and separated from the church. But there's no separation from the religion of the ruling class, which has a similar relation to the state that the church had to the monarchy during the height of their powers in the middle ages. They have hijacked the political power through ideas and communication -- and so all political parties must declare loyalty to capitalism as they declared belief in God, the rest being mostly incidental.

I think the reason their propaganda worked so well was because of the opportunistic use of stagflation during the 1970s and the unhappiness with the Carter administration. But also because it was theoretically more sophisticated (honed since the New Deal), and because the push was harder than the prior 25-30 years. Why? Because the threat was seen as much larger -- namely, the movements of the late 60s, and in particular the questioning of the economic system.

Even without the convenient backdrop of the Cold War and the easy comparison to "communism," these movements alone would have been enough to awaken the dragon. Right after these movements you have the Powell memorandum (1971) to the Chamber of Commerce, which essentially identifies the problem (too much democracy, too much questioning, too socialistic, too adversarial to the "free enterprise system") and outlines a strategy for pushing back against it, but also the Trilateral Commission (1975) -- which does the same (notice the symbol of the flag in the crosshairs).

All this leads to, in my view, the third most consequential election of the last 50 years: the 1980 election. Reagan was a smart choice -- a well-known actor, former candidate (with an enthusiastic base), governor of California, and perfect puppet. The time was apparently right to overtake the government and inaugurate a new era -- one completely determined by the masters of the universe: the neoliberal era, embodied in Reagan's inaugural speech as the slogan "Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem."

This was simultaneously done, electorally, by hijacking the Republican party since Nixon, forming a coalition of evangelicals, southern racists (the so called "Southern Strategy"), etc., bonded by social issues like abortion, affirmative action, "welfare queens," and an intense fear of communism.

With Reagan in the Whitehouse, and with the Friedman Doctrine dominating corporate governance, what Marx called the bourgeois now controlled both the corporation and the state.

In the present day, there are still those who cling to the failed, destructive neoliberal policies and the political and economic philosophy that underlies them, even after 40 years of this experiment. We should try our best to educate, but also remember that we have the majority.

:up:

Tony Judt's "Ill Fares The Land" takes up and develops some of these themes rather well.

Just for fun, this gem from David Hume:

NOTHING appears more surprizing to those, who consider human affairs with a philosophical eye, than the easiness with which the many are governed by the few; and the implicit submission, with which men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their rulers. When we enquire by what means this wonder is effected, we shall find, that, as Force is always on the side of the governed, the governors have nothing to support them but opinion. It is therefore, on opinion only that government is founded; and this maxim extends to the most despotic and most military governments, as well as to the most free and most popular. The soldan of Egypt, or the emperor of Rome, might drive his harmless subjects, like brute beasts, against their sentiments and inclination: But he must, at least, have led his mamalukes, or prætorian bands, like men, by their opinion. — David Hume, On The First Principles of Government

This is what I've tried to say much less eloquently.

Added a poll. In reviewing some of my older posts, I think this is worth revisiting and I'd like to see -- if forced to choose -- what forum members think about power.

I'd like to see -- if forced to choose -- what forum members think about power. — Xtrix

Power always existed in the different aspects of society. From a simple mayor to the PM of the state. If you want to hold the power you have to be ready to take the "wrong" way against ethics. If you check all the people with power you would see that most of them break the law. They do not act ethically but viciously to maintain such status.
In the other hand, while I don't see any interest on politics. I remember that when I attended to the university there were a lot of "affiliates". Well, most of them were fake, selfish, arrogant and cheaters. I guess these are the main characters of a politician (apart from the fact that they are rich) and probably they are senators now.

Most people in power are sincere individuals who believe they’re doing good in the world. That’s what I see. I don’t begrudge anyone their power, status, or wealth. I take issue with their actions, decisions, and judgment.

I think of the categories provided, the church is the most powerful. Everyone — in whatever class, in whatever position of power, and whether a politician or king or CEO, has a religion. This serves as a basis out of which their attitudes and actions flow.

I think of the categories provided, the church is the most powerful. Everyone — in whatever class, in whatever position of power, and whether a politician or king or CEO, has a religion. — Xtrix

Agreed. We should not forget that Catholic Church is even a state (Vatican City State is an independent city-state and enclave surrounded by Rome, Italy. Also known simply as the Vatican, the state became independent from Italy in 1929 with the Lateran Treaty, and it is a distinct territory under "full ownership, exclusive dominion, and sovereign authority and jurisdiction")

Religion is powerful towards education. Karl Marx wrote that religion is“the opiate of the masses” disconnecting disadvantaged people from the here and now, and dulling their engagement in progressive politics.
Nevertheless, according to Landon Schnabel, Religion still has a strong influence, but in a new way. Rather than making people less political, religion shapes people’s political ideas, suppressing important group differences and progressive political positions.

Here is the source: Religion: less ‘opiate,’ more suppressant, study finds

:up:

Philosophy rules them all, obviously, and adjudicates between them, and in the darkness binds them.

Which is the greatest advantage to control?
Brute force, money, or opinion.
Opinion.

Governments are a minority. They could not rule without control of opinion.

Money's worth is based on opinion, and convincing people to participate in wage slavery depends on controlling opinion.

It could be argued that governments and money are themselves fictions.

Governments are a minority. They could not rule without control of opinion. — Yohan

:up: :sparkle: