Posted on 11/08/2002 4:54:42 AM PST by metesky
Against reduced taxes
A great deal of traffic has passed through these op-ed pages on the issue of Maine taxes, mostly in favor of a strong reduction. Despite the impressive and well-detailed arguments, I am far from convinced. Elections are fast upon us and voters need full access to both sides of this crucial debate. My basic stance is that Mainers should be extremely wary of large tax cuts, and must fight for a radical restructuring of the system instead. The following points, taken together, present my case.
1. A false conclusion has been drawn from a good premise. As a doctor of philosophy, I am familiar with this common misstep, which plagues even the most learned politicians and analysts. In this instance, the good premise is that the current tax set-up is inefficient and even dysfunctional. I don't intend to dispute this. Moreover, I fully agree with the critics who virtually prove it-for example, Jim Clair, in his five part series (BDN, Sept. 25). The problem is, you can't leap from this fact to the conclusion that taxes should be lowered.
There's another option: a radical restructuring that changes the way government runs so that money is allocated more efficiently and in a fashion conducive to the health of the people and the beauty of the state. We have three doors before us, sort of like a game show. Door number one gives us the current tax system, door number two a path toward slashing taxes, and door number three a reorganization that focuses more on healthy results than reduced spending. Door No. 1 is ruled out, we all agree. But that leaves us two options, not one. Nowhere in the articles I have read that recommend tax cuts has anyone given a detailed (or even moderately detailed) argument for door No. 2 over door No. 3. The critics seem to suffer from a collective blindness, so enthralled by their effective indictment of the current system that they merely accept rather than reasonably demonstrate the need for major tax cuts.
2. High taxes are not necessarily bad. Have you ever wanted to live in a society where your child care and medical bills were paid for you, where you were guaranteed six or even eight weeks of paid vacation, where you were protected physically and mentally, "cradle to grave," by free government programs, where the work week was 35 hours yet paid as well as working 40? This might seem like a fantasy paradise to most Americans, but these are the kinds of conditions that exist in Western Europe, where nations have competitive economies and citizens enjoy very high standards of living-higher than those we enjoy, along many scales, as you might imagine. The price for these benefits is increased taxation. But, and here's my point, many people would say these taxes, given the social programs they support, are a good thing. If you believe that we live in a functioning democracy, as I do, then you believe we can press our government to give us the sort of protections we need and deserve. One of the most famous philosophers, Immanuel Kant, argued that humans possess a fundamental right to dignity and respect. This brand of Rationalism was adopted by our founding fathers when they quite literally declared that we have a right to the pursuit of happiness. Our government should be made to enforce happiness rights for all of us, not just entrepreneurs. Western Europe values its citizens and respects their happiness. When will we?
3. Low taxes are not necessarily good. Lowering taxes shifts power from government to big companies, which are not primarily concerned with human dignity but money, more specifically, satisfying shareholders by producing profits. With all the scandals concerning corporations and investment banking firms recently, it is increasingly clear, if not patently obvious, that greed is one of the primary motivators at the corporate level. Cutting taxes, then, should not be construed as a step toward virtue or ethics; rather, it is to yoke our future to the forces of greed. As someone who has studied the philosophy of ethics intensely, I can safely say that none of the world's great religions consider greed as anything but a negative. Sacred texts stand against greed and warn of the social as well as spiritual devastation it brings. Furthermore, history, charting the course of greed, shows its association with callousness, ignorance, and violence, not to mention corruption and downfall. The founding fathers had it right; the government is the seat of the protection of the people. Fix the Maine state government by your active, democratic involvement. Don't hobble it. If you're still not convinced, look at some of the states with low taxation rates. Many of them are in the South, where education scores are low, infant death mortality is high, and roads crumble due to lack of funding.
4. Growth is not necessarily beneficial. Lowering taxes, it is often said, will lead to growth. Advocates of this approach would do well to remember that the largest growth program in the world, spearheaded by the World Bank and the IMF (International Monetary Fund) was recently deemed a failure. Globalization, in terms of free market policies, has left Third World countries with massive debts, huge income gaps between rich and poor, pitiable social services and wrecked economies. If this seems too far away, consider this: if everyone in Maine was suddenly traumatized, growth numbers would surge because of increased medical spending.
Would such growth be a good thing? Here's another scenario: If the richest 1 percent of the population triple their wealth while the rest of us remain static, growth numbers go up. This scenario roughly reflects what happened during the booming 1990s, and it shows that growth is not a reason to automatically jump for joy. Anxiety, disappearing green space, and loss of community can all be more closely related to growth than the common good. Clearly, growth is no panacea for our social ills. True, it elevates stock indices for a while, generating a lot of wealth for big league investors. But money doesn't equate to happiness, especially for those who don't get a share of the profits in the first place. And when the stock market slumps, as it has now, the dilution of local character by generic sprawl remains. Where do we turn for relief? More growth! At some point this cycle of getting bigger and bigger has to end, otherwise Bangor will look like Bangkok (if you're laughing, check the statistics for Atlanta now and 75 years ago). What's the alternative? See point 2 above.
I have been criticized for calling productivity and growth rates abstract notions (BDN letter, Feb. 9). I fully agree that such rates, percentages, trends and so forth wield tremendous power, informing entire political agendas. However, these quantities, which can be written on chalkboards in lecture halls, or tucked neatly into mathematical equations, have become far too powerful. The first thing many of us look for in the newspaper these days isn't what's going on in the community, the environment, or even the hallowed domes of Augusta. Instead we look at little numbers buried in dizzying columns of digits. For those so transfixed, these numbers can exhilarate or ruin their day. But the well-being of our state cannot be reduced to a number. Neither can our virtue, pride, sense of meaning, or many of the other wonderful qualities that make life so magical.
Looking at the bigger picture, we have two choices. We can move toward the dignity accorded in Western Europe, perhaps by galvanizing the progression toward universal health care (or, please, let's at least allow our seniors affordable prescription drugs). The other option is to slash taxes, compete harder, stress, and watch the Maine lifestyle go the way of the local hardware store.
Chris Crittenden, of Lubec, has a Ph.D. in philosophy and ethics and recently had his work published in the Journal of Business Ethics.
I need a barf bag....
I though Ph.D. stood for "Post-hole Digger"...
Don't worry the State will take care of us, after all the state has all the money.
Hmmm. He means that good old Bill Clinton his own bad self, was actually working to increase the wealth of the rich while keeping the rest down? (He is solely responsible for the 90's economy, dontcha know).
Wow.
Babs will be so pleased.
If you actually do some productive work, you're correct, it is Post Hole Digger.
;O)
Good questions, but questions the socialists always avoid answering.
Just because, is good enough answer for them, as if we were children to be scolded and corrected.
Marxism by any other name smells just as rotten...
BUMP
Some Phd. It is true that you can reach an incorrect conlusion (sometimes) from a correct premise. However, you always reach yhe wrong conclusion when your premise is wrong.
His premise is patently wrong!
The main problems with the tax system are that it is unfair and it inhibits productivity. It's unfair because it takes money from one person and gives it to others for no better reason than the other person wants it and has political clout. It inhibits productivity by stealing resources from productive people and giving them to non productive people, thus encouraging both to produce less.
The fact that it is innefficient at accomplishing the above is a good thing.
My point exactly. The government will gladly take anything you wish to give. But, these socialist idiots want EVERYONE to suffer for the "greater good."
Keep your slimy hands out of my wallet.
"There must be equity of suffering." -- Barbara Jordon 1992.
Hmmmm! Nope! I think It's an acronym for "Piled Higher and Deeper"!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.