Posted by silentpadna on 9/23/2011 11:58:00 AM (view original):
This is where I wanted the discussion to go when the thread got started. Not necessarily about Buffet, but a real discussion about what is "fair", how it's determined, who determines what's fair (and whether they have that right inherently), etc.
I'm honestly tired of public figures (i.e. politicians and "smart journalists") wrangling over "fair share' when no one will define it. Talk to anybody casually about it and the "consensus" generally comes out like this:
1. The rich should pay more. (OK, how much more?)
2. The rich should pay their fair share. (OK, what is that?)
3. Tax the rich more and the deficit would go down. (Really? How would you know? Can you show me a time where this was the case - [not asking for correlation, asking for cuasation]?)
3A. (Corrolary to 3) Raise taxes to raise revenue. (Why does revenue go UP when tax rates are lower?)
3B. (2nd Corrolary to 3) Raise taxes on the rich so their share increases. (Why then does the burden shift MORE to the rich when tax rates are lower?)
4. We need to grow the economy by raising taxes on the rich. (Can you show me how this would work?)
5. Give a company a tax incentive to hire and they'll hire. (You mean they will hire someone because their cost of that person is less? What if they don't have a job for them to perform? Does that lower their cost?)
The broad point of the leading question in the thread title is that you can't have a rational discussion if you can't figure out how to define the basic principles and what your goals are. And as evidenced by quite a few posts in these 40+ pages, without those benchmarks, most discussion is envy and class warfare.
Generally in history, at least since the 1920's, lowering tax rates has had the effect of increasing treasury revenues. It's also had the effect of shifting the tax base more toward the rich.
If you want to raise government revenues, why would you want to raise tax rates on the rich?
If you want to raise tax rates on the rich, are you okay with the deficit being worse?
I'm not a rich guy. Probably never will be. They generally live a lifestyle I can't even comprehend. But in terms of the real goals that most people claim they want out of the system, the raising of taxes on them most likely won't accomplish the purpose they claim to support.
None of this even addresses whether or not it's morally right for a government to take the fruits of production of one and give to another.
Fair share is a well-crafted message that likely tests well with focus groups, which is probably why politicians will cling to it. It works because it sends without making any specific commitments. It's a little like GOP polemists who shriek about the need to reduce the size of government but proceed to explain why the Pentagon needs to increase its budget in order to keep America strong or safe or whatever message du jour that tests well in red states.
Taxing the rich is a fine balancing act because if you increase taxes too much, that capital will eventually take flight. One reason the rich don't pay as much is they employ tax experts who are very clever at finding loopholes. Tightening those will probably have the same effect as raising tax rates.
At the same time, suggesting that lowering taxes will increase revenues to the treasury suggests you've bought into the type of deluded thinking that has seen the United States wind up into the fiscal jackpot that it currently finds itself in with a massive national debt that will burden your great-grandchildren. Government revenues increase do increase times of prosperity and contract during recessions. The good times in the 1920s were followed by a horrific crash in the 1930s.
The United States has put off tough choices for a very long time and it is not alone as western Europe is going through the very same exercise right now. Americans need to accept they need to pay a little more and make do with a lot less from the government, starting with military spending.
The first choice that never is put up for discussion by the "shrink government" crowd is whether the American taxpayer should continue to foot the bill for a very large military presence overseas when the country is close to being fiscally exhausted.
You can continue to put off these tough choices and argue about whether Buffett should pay more or less or whether you can afford Obamacare or to overhaul the Air Force's aging fleet of fighter jets or ten kinds of pointless horseshit that gets debated every day. Eventually America's creditors will come calling and that day will be a sad one for those of us who want to see America remain as a pre-eminent leader in the world. But you won't be able to continue in that role as a financial basket case and you are closer to that status than you realize. That's because only one president in my lifetime -- Bill Clinton -- had the guts to work against his partisan interests and end the deficit. Everybody else, from Johnson through Obama, has added to the problem.
As the Brits will tell you, the fall from superpower status can be very swift and very humbling. For what it's worth, I hope the GOP and Obama Administration do decide to get their **** together and start working together rather than engage in the childish and pointless partisan fingerpointing. I've got no interest in learning Mandarin at my age.