Even little choices like who should get the last cookie,..."I ate the apple and, besides, I'm trying to keep my weight down"... or who should drive the "good car"..."yes, it's my turn, but you're traveling farther and if you break down you're more vulnerable than I am."
That's about fairness? Coulda fooled me. Taking turns is about fairness, the rest is something else.
Why shouldn't we, or why can't we, use that same analytical process in determining relative tax rates?
I think using that kind of metric is just fine. But the question was about fairness.
PS, And why do you allege that analyzing "efficiency" in setting tax rates is "too subjective?"
Because the word is interpreted differently and contradictorily, as I said. If we can find a consensus of what efficiency means in the context of tax policy, then I think efficiency is a fine metric. But that hasn't happened and is not likely to. (My abandonment of fairness comes from years of management issues. First, what suits most people is what they considers fair, which conflates by way of bias two different concepts and introduces blame and character criticism in what is a simple conflict of interests. Also, it's all but impossible to get a consensus on what is fair, especially in a group of any size. Some arenas have established standards, but even those produce unfairness reactions from losing participants. Human nature.) |
