You frame it as a question of 'how many more welfare recipients' should he support. I frame it as why doesn't he pay his fair share....
We're looking at the same question, except that you're asking it as though you already have the ultimate criterion and have judged him lacking. I am simply asking the question. By what criteria do we determine what is his fair share?
You say that he used some legal tax reduction technique, ergo he paid less than his fair share. I don't think that holds up as the go-to criterion. We all do things that reduce our taxes. We may buy new storm windows in a year when there's some tax benefit rather than in a year when there isn't. We may invest in something that produces dividends rather than interest. We may claim a parent as a dependent when he or she qualifies. Does that mean we're not paying our fair share? If you are having a lot of dental work done, work that would run into the next tax year, and you pay for it up front so that you can qualify for a medical deduction for which you would not if you had spread the payments out, are you not paying your fair share? People decide, for example, to marry or not marry based on tax considerations. If they choose the marital status that improves their bottom line, are they not paying their fair share? That makes no sense.
We have a complicated tax code. Personally, I would favor a flat tax, no deductions, no convoluted accounting. But that's not what we have. People are expected to consider tax consequences when they spend or make investments or take any of life's actions. The code is in part designed to get people to do this or not do that in the interest of the country by making this or that tax favorable or not favorable. The tax code, itself, as a result, may or may not be fair but that's another matter. I don't see how anyone following the law can reasonably be accused of withholding his fair share. If you think the code is unfair, then you should be railing about it, not about someone who is following it as good citizens are supposed to do.
What I was suggesting with my framing is that your criterion isn't the ultimate criterion. I suggested that you might consider what his fair share is in terms of the number of his fellow citizens that he effectively supports. Sure, those who can pay have to pay for those who can't. But how much is fair? How many of those who can't should any one citizen have to support to have contributed his fair share? Is that not a reasonable way to get a handle on what one's fair share is? Mine may not be the ultimate criterion either. Only saying that your assumption of the ultimate criterion isn't the given that you seem to think it is.
I'm sure there are many ways of looking at it, many potential criteria for determining fair share. I mentioned one in an effort not to push that criterion, only to offer some perspective and get you to consider that the criterion you have selected, actively pursuing legal tax avoidance techniques, is not the be all and end all criterion for determining what one's fair share is. If you look at the way I suggested, he may be paying way more than his fair share. I don't care how rich you are, you shouldn't have to support a whole city full of people, seems to me. Certainly not if you can legally avoid it. So I asked how many dependents you would allocate to him and his taxes, not that I was looking for a number, only to get you to consider how much money/how many dependents anyone's fair share would be. |
