I could just as easily argue interest on money in my bank is a mutually agreed upon exchange of me letting them say they’re holding my money for money. That is not fundamentally different from a n exchange of laborious for wages.
When America was founded you could not tax a man’s labor nor his property. My how things have changed!
BTW, worth digging into this case a bit more to see why it's docketed ~ is the real issue something else perhaps?
Yes, it is fundamentally different.
The fruits of labor are real and tangible, and exchangable for compensation of any kind, including the labor of another. The holding of money may or may not produce added value.