Doing my best to prevent the internet from becoming one big f@cking cat meme!
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
"Fair share" revisited.
Robert Reich makes an interesting case for raising taxes on the wealthy. Nevertheless, he includes that terribly vacuous argument that the rich should "pay their fair share". This is indeed true (true of all citizens, in fact). However, you cannot make such an argument without defining what you mean by "fair share"--Quantity? Percentage? Capacity? Otherwise, this argument has no meaning whatsoever.
For what it's worth, I think the argument "pay their fair share" is made against, and indeed is made as an indictment of, the (often tacit) contrary (or is it contradictory?) - "pay as little as you can get away with, and lobby as hard as you can for your own interest". Because, fuck the common good, just push as hard as you can to get away with whatever you can. Whatever "fair share" means it doesn't mean what is currently availing among tax exemptions (I assume rates, marginal or otherwise, are largely irrelevant since the devil is in the exemptions that lobbyists are able to get passed.)
For what it's worth, I think the argument "pay their fair share" is made against, and indeed is made as an indictment of, the (often tacit) contrary (or is it contradictory?) - "pay as little as you can get away with, and lobby as hard as you can for your own interest". Because, fuck the common good, just push as hard as you can to get away with whatever you can. Whatever "fair share" means it doesn't mean what is currently availing among tax exemptions (I assume rates, marginal or otherwise, are largely irrelevant since the devil is in the exemptions that lobbyists are able to get passed.)
ReplyDelete