Controlling the means of production and taxing labor are at root the same thing; they merely approach the right of the State to own its citizens from different angles. The first precedes profit (assumes future income and seizes it), the second follows profit (seizes income that has been made). They both assume the right of the State to commandeer (take without permission) its citizens’ profit by force.
Further, the distinction is most clearly obliterated when we realize that the real means of production is the individual. Taking from the individual in the interest of the State by assuming the right to seize by violence whatever he produces, regardless of how–by building a factory or simply working in one–is the root of both ideas.
And truly, you cannot take from the individual without his consent unless you have already disregarded consent as being an illegitimate component of social value exchange. And as surely as night becomes day once consent is disregarded man is no longer a human being to be bargained with but a thing to be owned.
I faintly remember reading a history of the income tax many years ago. Abraham Lincoln had one on the top 1% to help pay for the war. That is in contrast to the Southern States confiscational approach.
FDR, the rich Patrician socialist, really expanded the concept. His good friend, the owner of Macy’s, suggested he have employers collect the tax and send it to the Federal government. He explained that People wouldn’t be as angry as when they had to write the check themselves and mail it in. It worked. All too well. And the land of lemmings expanded government to epic proportions. After all, the 4 term rich patrician saved us and knew best for us.
Fast forward to Obama having big brother IRS make us prove we hacpve health insurance or fine us. I believe most Americans have embraced socialism and group identity politics.
Btw: the worst economic year in the Great Depression was 1936. Interesting, eh? The social engineers always know best for us. Sigh.
Exactly right