We can call it class warfare or redistribution of wealth or whatever we want, but the decisions regarding how much tax to collect, from who, and how to distribute it results in redistribution of wealth...in every instance.
Sure, virtually every government policy redistributes wealth. So does every commercial transaction. I'm differentiating between redistribution as a sidee effect and the overt singling out of Jack and Jill, taking from one and giving to the other because the other is deemed by the government to be more deserving of it.
The important questions are whether the redistributions make sense from efficiency points of view and fairness points of view.
Both efficiency and fairness are too subjective and individualistic to be objectively useful. Efficiency didn't use to be subjective but now we have operational efficiency meaning and the capitalism meaning. The meanings are almost contradictions, a contronym. I can't imagine getting a consensus on either ever. We thrash ourselves to death trying.
Those who claim it's "not fair" to tax the very top of the income scale in order to partially fund a tax break for those in the middle class seem to be pretending that we're starting from an even playing field.
Seems to me that trying to apply fairness is an impossible snarl to get into. We tax those at the very top of the income scale because, as Willie Horton said, "that's where the money is." And because there are lots more middle class voters. Fairness is a figment. Is it fairer to tax young families to support seniors or the converse? Any debate about that is inherently GIGO, IMO.
We can argue fairness and efficiency but we should not shrink from the fact that the choices we make are, among other factors, redistribution of wealth choices.
The best solution IMO is to limit the functionality that requires tax support as much as possible to reduce the impact to a level that allows acceptance, collect the necessary revenues pragmatically and sustainably, and can the fairness conceit. |
