
Here's a line to raise the eyebrows: "It is shocking to think that we have a presidential candidate who would make the private sector $5 poorer in order to make the government $1 richer." ("Obama Turns FDR Upside Down," by Lawrence Lindsey, The Wall Street Journal) That's right, persons are taxed in such a way as to lose $5 while the government gains $1. You might wonder how that could be? Read the article to find out.
But you also might wonder, why read it? The minutiae of tax policy is only for policy wonks and professionals, right? Voters are only to consider matters of principle when casting their votes.
Campaigns are built off this misconception. Presidential candidates and political professionals are well aware of voters' aversion to detail. So they cast their tax policy claims in terms of "fairness" -- the conservatives claim that the government has no right to take more money than they need (which is less than the liberals think) and the liberals claim that the wealthy are not putting in their fair share (which is more than the conservatives think).
Now, I suspect both campaigns and many voters are often disingenuous when appealing to "fairness." Notice, for instance, how the appeal in speeches is always to the suffering middle class, never the 12.5% of Americans living below the poverty line. That aside, there are ethical concerns worthy of discussion in these questions. They center on two issues: how much does the government need and who's going to pay for it.
What people miss (and what politicians and media often hide) is that there are pragmatic considerations as well, considerations which must inform the ethical issues. In these sorts of gray areas, you can't begin to make an ethical decision without knowing the facts. So, move past the rhetoric and take some time to understand the boring details. In a democracy, we are all the ruling class. Rule well.
1 comment:
liking the blog dainsworth. keep up the good work.
Post a Comment