FAIRNESS
Words mean things.
I understand that some words have a relative aspect to them. ("Good"... "Ugly"... "Delicious"...)
But on the other end of the spectrum... if you decide on your own to call an apple a cucumber, a cucumber a coconut, and a coconut a boat motor, I can't really trust you with the shopping list.
"Fairness" is a word that gets tossed around fairly often in political discussions, but it is hard to pin down what it means, exactly. Especially given the fact that the people that seem to use it the most often will change its meaning at the drop of a hat if it suits them.
This makes debating with such people pointless. If they can't even apply a consistent definition to their own concepts, you have no hope of a logical discussion with them.
Such people have ONE idea of fairness that applies to them, and another that applies to everyone else, negating the entire concept of fairness to it's core.
I remember a discussion with an ex-co-worker I had once. A decent guy. He could at least listen to other viewpoints with an open mind. He once said to me, (to paraphrase), "I don't think it is fair that the doctors make so much more than I do. I put in my hours just like they do. I don't do what they do and they don't do what I do, but both jobs are important. Why should THEY make any more money than I do?"
I replied "What about the janitor? She cleans up nasty bathrooms and takes out trash every day... she is here 40 hours a week like you... and has a thankless job... So you are saying she should get paid the same as you?" At which point he IMMEDIATELY started backpedaling. "Well that is different... I went to school and..."
Right. And so did the doctors. And they probably went further in to debt. And they spent longer in school. And nobody forcibly kept this guy from choosing a career path that made more money. He looked at all the directions he could go and chose of his own free will one that was less financially rewarding than what med school would have gotten him. There is nothing unfair about paying a doctor more money. Nothing.
So... anyway... to my main point.
I hear a lot about this group or that group "Paying their fair share", without any clarification of what constitutes a "fair share". I find that when such people DEFINE what they think is a "fair share", my response is "Oh... When you say 'fair share', what you mean is 'definitively UNfair share'... Gatcha."
What is fair? Allow me to demonstrate.
So you and I decide to go catch a movie. When we get there, I say "Do you want me to get you popcorn or anything?" and you laugh and say "No thanks... Knock yourself out but I ain't paying $7.50 for 75¢ worth of soda and 30¢ worth of popcorn."
So you go in and sit down and a few minutes later I come and sit beside you and say "OK. I got a large popcorn and drink and some gummy bears. It came to 11 bucks so you owe me $5.50"
If I did this, you would look at me like I just walked off of a spaceship. You would say "What are you talking about? I told you I didn't want any. Neither do I have any intention of eating or drinking any of yours. Where do you get off telling me I owe you $5.50?"
I put on my my best baffled expression and say "Easy. Two of us came to enjoy a movie together, the total expenditure on experience-enhancers was 11 bucks. Divide by two."
If this were to happen on an individual basis, like this, you would be surprised how little variation in the concept of fairness there is across race, class, religion, or sexual orientation.
Fairness is simple. Pay for what you choose to buy. If you don't want it and don't consume it... you don't owe for it.
So, the logically consistent position when talking about taxes is the same. Pay for what you use (plus the government markup since you insist on doing it that way).
The fact is, regardless of the reason, the poor use the public money far more than the rich do. They use the police more, the fire departments more, the public schools more, the public libraries more... on and on.
Rich people can afford private schools. Why should they ALSO be paying for public schools to pay for the education of children they did not choose to bring in to the world? Why should childless people have to pay for public schools if they have no children? The VERY rich don't even need health insurance. Bill Gates can pay out of his pocket for any disease that might come up. It is his choice, but health insurance for him is very likely wasted money.
Now before you go off painting me as unrealistic or heartless and start in on your litany about the public good.. lets stay on topic. We are not talking about those things. We are talking about the concept of "Fairness". I understand the fact that rich industrialists benefit from an educated populace from which to hire employees to exploit in their evil capitalist plans to overtake the world.... and I understand that if you don't have an educated electorate in a constitutional republic, you eventually get enough brain rot to end up with an approximation of the movie "Idiocracy"... (Though I also realize that we didn't have a Department of Education as we know it until October of 1979... and our schools have been going to crap since its establishment.)
It is impossible to calculate WHO benefits from WHAT enough to implement a TRULY fair system. My point is, if we apply the same standard to everyone that we do to ourselves... then someones "fair share" would be to "pay for what you use". If a rich man gets 2 million in subsidies for his business, he should have to pay 2 million in in taxes to offset it. If a poor man gets 10k in food stamps. He should pay in 10k in taxes to offset it. If an electric car owner gets a 20k rebate, he should pay 20k in taxes. Corn farmers. Solar companies. Whoever.
"But that's crazy..." you might say... "If someone pays in exactly what they take out, why would the government even get involved?"
Bingo. They wouldn't.
Exactly as the founding fathers intended.
"Impossible and heartless!" you say? Perhaps. If you are a resdistributionist, so be it... my point is simply that your model is anything BUT "fair". If you don't eat my popcorn, you shouldn't have to pay for it. Why is this so hard to understand?
"You have more stuff than me. Give me your stuff or I will send policemen with guns to take it." is NOT an accurate defintion of the word "fairness" in any reality.
FAIR: Pay for what you use. No more. No less.
But true fairness is unattainable, it seems. So, since any redistributive tax structure is unfair by its very nature, how can we minimize its inherent unfairness?
LEAST UNFAIR: If we are not going to make people pay for what they take, then everyone should pay the same amount. To (admittedly) oversimplify, 3 trillion in federal receipts divided by 240 million adult taxpayers only comes to 12,500 each. If everyone else will do their part, I will do mine... but I don't want to hear any whining from part timers who only make 5 grand a year. This is about fairness. Also... end any and all subsidies of any type.
MORE UNFAIR BUT WITH A TOUCH OF FAIRNESS: If we discard the above two scenarios as impossible, then the next level would be the flat tax. It is very simple. Your tax is, say, 17%, regardless of whether you make 2K a year or 20 Million. Every time anyone on the left or the right proposes increased spending, be it on missiles and guns or laptops for crackheads... EVERYONE should decide if the benefits of the new spending is worth the increase in taxes. This keeps people involved in the political process. It removes the stair-step disincentive to progress where someone decides NOT to, for instance, open a new store because it bumps them in to a new tax bracket. It removes the incentive to avoid taxes by lowering ones salary to increase ones income. It removes the IRS. It might put a lot of accountants out of business... this is true... but they are a bright lot and I am sure they will land on their feet. Remove all of the subsidies. Flatten the business tax too. Stick it at about 15%... stop having the third highest corporate income tax rate on the planet and watch the jobs come back to the country.
This is where some good-hearted and well-intentioned leftist will pipe up and say "Well... people have to eat... so lets say no taxes under 20k a year and flat above that"
I would agree to that provided they were also denied the vote. Which I am fundamentally against... so I say No. I support a flat tax for all voting citizens of the country. If you make money and you want a say in how the collective funds are spent, then you need to have skin in the game. Otherwise you are a parasite. Taking more than you give is bad enough... but then to argue that you shouldnt have to give ANYTHING? Geez guys. How can you look in the mirror?
I personally support the flat tax, though I acknowledge it falls short of the "fair" mark because it is still redistributionist. But I think that it is the best way forward.. and I believe that EVEN IF IT CAUSES MY TAXES TO TRIPLE.
If my taxes triple, then I know almost everyone elses have too... and there is nothing that will cause people to put down their iPhones and start paying attention to where the taxes are being spent quicker than that. When you show the taxpayers that all the "free stuff" from the government usually costs them more than it would in the private sector, then we can start to have actual discussions about the best way to spend our money.
WHAT ABOUT THE FAIR TAX?
Ok... so... the "fair tax" is slightly less fair than the flat tax in my opinion, though both have some positive points.
The fair tax is an idea to do away with income tax completely and just go to a national sales tax... since rich people consume more... they would pay more taxes, but that would be voluntary... and thus "fair", in the sense that they have the option of consuming less.
Here are my issues with the "fair tax".
1. It requires a repeal of the 16th amendment, or we would end up with an income tax AND a national sales tax. Your government has a higher percentage of absolute morons than it ever has... I do not want them messing around with the constitution. Who knows what else they would start monkeying with if they got in there.
2. Many "Fair Tax" plans suggest a "prebate" to poor families to help them offset the cost of the taxes. I would oppose this. Period. Because I believe everyone should have skin in the game. (To be fair... most flat taxers believe in a floor on taxable income too.. which I aslo oppose for the reasons listed above.)
3. It is a lot harder to rely on a predictable amount of tax income coming in from sales taxes.. it seems to me that it would be a lot more volatile source to deal with. As a result, I suspect that the government would start monkeying around with it immediately... and as the government does NOTHING well.. we would regret this quickly. They would torpedo it by trying to "fix it" and then they would throw up their hands and say "See? It doesn't work" and then re-institute an income tax and never remove the sales tax. Maybe I am wrong, but it just seems way too complex for these idiots to handle. Even though it might sound good at first proposal.
4. There would probably be a rush in to credit right before it went in to effect. I am personally not a fan of credit and debt. Sometimes it is a necessity, perhaps.. (buying a house). But the last thing this country needs is for millions of people to go deep in to debt all at once to avoid future taxes.
DEFINITIVELY UNFAIR
Today's progressive tiered income tax system.
...which is absofreakinglutely NOT "fair" in any way, shape, or form.
It is not "fair" if the rich DO pay what you ask them...
It is not "fair" if the rich find ways to not pay at all.
It is not "fair" for people to be able to vote themselves money out of other peoples pockets. Period.
And this is not new knowledge.
Someone once said "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy." (It is often attributed to de Tocqueville, but I think it might have been Elmer T Peterson.)
I agree with that in the most part.. though I don't think Americans will end up with a dictator or a monarch... there are too many guns in the hands of the people... what will happen, and what IS happening... is more akin to "Atlas Shrugged".
We will keep increasing the number of people crawling in the wagon to be pulled while we discourage the people pulling the cart. At some point, people just say "screw it" and go crawl in the cart. The engine will grind to a halt and all the people will start pointing at each other AND the government.
...and they have guns. A LOT of guns.
We have to turn around the growth of the "free shit army", and soon... or things will some day get very VERY ugly. Mark my words. The politicians promise money from other people's pockets to gain votes, but those pockets will go empty sooner than anyone expects. Then you have millions of people expecting their goodies, and no way to deliver.
We ALL can acknowledge that there are people with a lot of money and, yeah... there are people who have far more than they "need". You are probably one of them, though.
Go to http://www.globalrichlist.com/ and put in your income. Where do YOU fall? Does this change your view of "fairness"? Are you going to be "all about the equality" when a family from Turkmenistan shows up on your doorstep asking for your iPad?
If you are a redistributionist, then, surely you agree that all your crap should be redistributed... right?
Probably not.
Like I said... "fair" is usually a word that has one meaning when you apply it to yourself... and one when it is applied to everybody else.
I can handle debates with redistributionists. I think they are generally well-intentioned, (until you try to re-distribute THEIR stuff). They think of wealth as a finite pot... and that "income inequality" is somehow dangerous, and they are SO brainwashed in to this thinking, that if you offered them a choice of 50% of a $100 pile of money or 10% of a $1,000,000 pile of money... they would take the 50 bucks out of a sense of "fairness" and walk out the door. (For the record, I would settle for the 100K... you can keep the "fairness". I wouldn't even feel like I had been screwed, either.)
What drives me nuts though... seriously... is when they demand someone else's money based on nothing other than the fact that have more... and then call it a "fair" share. That is an insane and arbitrary application of the concept of "fairness". It might be a "legal allotment"... but it sure isnt "fair"
