As I get older (note the intentional non-use of ‘mature’), my body slows while my mind accelerates. I find I spend ever more time contemplating the time when I rule the world. If you didn’t know, it is a very demanding task and I am no longer sure I am up to it.
Take for instance the following scenario:
Imagine that you are an extreme believer in progressive taxation (this may be difficult for some, but remember this is just hypothetical). No matter how much the rich pay in taxes, they still have more than they need, while even with no taxation, there are those at the bottom who work hard and still have trouble keeping the lights on. You think that those who benefit the most from our society and economy have the greatest responsibility to give back to it.
Now suppose that studies have been done, economists have analyzed the data and the results are incontrovertible: eliminating taxes on large carat diamonds, luxury cars and private jets actually stimulates the economy to the extent that total tax revenue is higher than it was with the taxes and at the same time, more of the lower and middle classes will be hired into good paying jobs with benefits. Is it worth allowing the tax burden to become less progressive if it results in a net benefit for all?
There is evidence for economic growth through a reduction in taxes on investment and business, but there is also strong evidence for economic stimulus through tax cuts for, or payments to, those in the lower income brackets. The difference is in the specific structure of tax cuts or payments and the specific conditions of the economy. How ridiculous is a discussion of capital gains tax cuts at a time when there are no capital gains? But before we discuss which path is the ideal for the current circumstances, we need to decide how important the ideal is (perhaps for moral or cultural reasons) and how important bottom line results are. If we can all agree on this (or even agree to disagree to some degree), perhaps at that point we can discuss the merits of each side rather than each side just arguing a position they settled on years ago and have not considered since.
How about if you are dead set against the redistribution of wealth? This would include direct payments, as well as government benefits for the poor paid for by taxes on the rich or middle class. As far as you are concerned, each citizen should be responsible for himself and the strongest will survive and thrive.
Now, what if the numbers showed that a college education resulted in higher lifetime income and productivity? Let’s say that the increase in income is so great that it results in additional tax revenue exceeding the total cost of the education. In addition, the resultant increase in income also means an increase in economic activity that creates more jobs. What would you choose as the ideal role of government in the funding of education? Would you stick to your guns on the ideal of personal responsibility and leave educational funding up to the individual? Maybe you think we should take a middle road (much like we do today) by providing loans that allow each individual to get an education, but having them pay back the costs out of their greater earnings. Or on the other end of the spectrum, does logic and pragmatism prevail over ideals? Knowing that the greatest number of people would get a college degree and the greatest increase in long term economic growth would come from full government funding of higher education, do we sacrifice the belief in personal responsibility for the greater good?
The facts in this case are that a college education not only makes a marked difference in income, but that during slow economic times, the unemployment rate has an inverse relationship with education. It is also a fact that outside of loans, grants and scholarships, higher education is still heavily subsidized and a pure market solution would drop us so far below the rest of the industrialized world that we would be competing with developing nations over low skilled, dollar a day type jobs. There is also the likelihood that a free college education for everyone would result in a diminished return on investment. However, the debate always seems to center on fairness or opportunity and usually fails to address the net effect of any policy on the society and economy as a whole.
We can continue this line of questioning with the health care debate. Is our real concern the redistribution of wealth through subsidies? Is it government control over health care? Is it the threat to availability or quality? What are our major motivations or objections with regard to our position on health care reform? Like taxation, this is not a simple issue and there are data and anecdotal evidence to back up either side. There are also practical trade offs between the positions. But whatever our take, if we are to move forward in a positive manner, we need to honestly express our concerns and decide how much of our position is based on ideals and how much we will compromise these ideals to reach our end goal. Once there, we need to be open to the facts and how they frame the issue as a whole.
The same kinds of idealism vs pragmatism dichotomies can be played out with funding for the arts, first time homebuyer subsidies, alternative energy, etc, but the concept is the same. Anyone can find data to back up any position on any issue. There are statistics and misrepresented facts that can harden positions on both sides until there is no compromise, only winners and losers. In some instances, we end up with losers and losers in order to avoid all possible doomsday scenarios that have propagated into the argument. Why? Because we have created a zero sum game of politics and no one wants to be vulnerable by stepping out and doing the right thing.
None of this argues against ideals, I just argue for a better consideration of ideals. Do we want less disparity between classes or a better life for those at the bottom? Energy independence or cheap energy? More security or more convenience? Often these questions get lost in the rhetoric. Too often we fear the honest questions because they get to the heart of what we really want instead of what we claim to want. Sometimes they reveal the complexity of something that we really want to be simple.
No comments:
Post a Comment