(I am going to change my typical terminology here in a bow to 19th century theory. Usually the language used would be the "cost of labor" instead of labor's share of production wealth. However nothing is created without labor, even speculative wealth requires the efforts of someone, so how can one say that by creating something you are an inherent cost to it? It is more accurate to say that capital, meaning the non-personal entity which most corporations are and the environment in which they function creates "cost". Nothing can happen without labor, nothing can happen without the organizing principal which management represents, but how much of ownership represents a function completely dependent upon a particular individual to justify the argument that management as the personification of capital is the primacy of production? Onward.)

Generally labor's share of the wealth created through production is recognized as wages, and benefits, including possible equity interests. But labor's ability to create through production is dependent upon family structure and a stable society, the markets ability to give an adequare share of wealth to labor is also dependent upon the market function effectively, which requires a pool of unemployed labor. So there are workers who are either, not unemployed, out of the workforce but contributing to the family unit or society in some way, or out of the workforce but still contributing to the labor pool which has the potential of being drawn upon. These people are not simply negatives to the wealth created through production, and they also share in the wealth created through production, either through government run programs or through a drain on employed labor's share of wealth through family expenses or charitable expenses, government programs also are funded through directly taxing labor itself.

So labor's share of wealth is much higher than simple wages and benefits, it's true share includes many other social expenses. This does not mean that unemployed persons aren't performing functions required by the family unit, society or markets.

Given the above premise the way we tax capital and individuals to fund programs and dispense their benefits would seem to be an emormously complicated way of sharing the wealth created by production. The taxes come from multiple sources and in multiple ways, the methods of distributing the wealth mask the required amount of wealth and are inflexible and overburdened with bureaucratic inefficiencies. The core idea is simple, production creates wealth which must be shared in as simple and effective a manner as possible amongst the whole of the labor pool.

This I've thought out a bit, the actual administration I am still muddling over, any thoughts are appreciated. Perhaps a simple surcharge on profits represented by the amount of unemployed people in the labor pool, to be equitably ditributed amongst the labor pool. This might help to encourage offering employment options to the labor pool since the wealth needed by the unemployed goes up as the amount of labor unemployed goes up.

A more conservative line of thought would be to funnel the money now taxed into wages benefits so labor may share more of the wealth the recieve amongst themselves, through family or charities. But this places many in the labor force at the risk of having a viable family structure, something many people do not have.

An associated though somewhat different thought is that markets require educated workers to function properly, and so the cost of educating the labor pool should be directly levied on capital, instead of the family unit. If a corporation requires an input of certain specifications to function it pays for that, rather than asking labor to pay for it. The family unit may pursue some education from an altruistic standpoint but most is done to accrue marketable skills. In this regard they are placed at the mercy of a system that recognizes broad educational goals as opposed to marketable skills as the goal, the system doesn't reflect real market needs in real time. By creating a more direct capital to education cost relationship one may increase the administration of more relevant, usuable, and culturally appreciated education.