What is the definition of 'Fairness'

D

DFWAg

1,000+ Posts
in a political and economic sense?

I see this very vague term used to justify all sorts of things.

People earning over $250,000 "need to pay their fair share."

The DREAM act is an issue of "fairness" per almost every editorial or analysis I have read on the subject.

Our President feels gay marriage should be supported out of equality and fairness".

It seems to be a key theme in this election. Where does fair start or end? How do you gauge fairness?
 
One of the first times I remember BO spouting the fairness tact was when even after the Charlie Gibson pointed out that EVERY time capital gains taxes were lowered revenue increased including when clinton did it

and EVERY time captial gains taxes were incresed revenues dropped.

But BO said he would raise the capital gains tax rate as a "matter of fairness"

Can any BO supporter defend that statement?
 
Clearly reducing the deficit if of no concern to Obama.

Class warfare, on the other hand, is a wonderful thing in his world.
 
While I won't dispute the above replies as the way that politicians use "fairness" in politics, I do believe fairness in opportunity is a worthwhile goal for our country.

"fairness in opportunity" would basically mean to me...
That a person reaches the age of majority with approximately the same opportunities available to them, as there are for every other American. With that in mind, I recognize absolute equality of opportunity will never exist just simply due to the variation in school systems, parenting etc.

But I do believe that we should pursue and make choices based on evolving towards that end goal.

1. Good Health - and to that aim, I would make a CHIPS-like program available everywhere. And breakfast/lunch programs for those that need/qualify.
2. Quality HS education - The quality is such that the kid is prepared to go on to college if they so choose

And I recognize that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. Having an education resource available, doesn't mean that a kid will do what is needed to maximize it. That is a parenting shortcoming and the gov't can't fix that, no matter how much money we throw at it.

But I don't think we throw our hands in the air with "we'll never be able to fix it" for a response.

IMO, people use the difficult logistics of achieving "fairness" as the arguement against pursuing fairness rather than actually addressing whether "fairness of opportunity" is a worthwhile goal.

Do we value an even playing field (fairness)? should be the first question.

Instead of "can we achieve fairness"?
 
Stampede, I would argue that "throwing money at a problem" in the name of fairness will almost always make the situation worse.

The Great Society was a great exercise in good intentions that has gone horribly, horribly wrong.

Our problems in education can be traced back to the same. Why in the world would we ever make it advantageous for women to have children outside of marriage? So we could have a great society?
 
dont-tax-capital-gains.jpg


I suppose with any chart you can read what you want from it but it seems pretty clear to me that reducing the rate increases revenue. It certainly doesn't reduce revenue as you can see from the last 30+ years. The major dips were due to major economic collapses where all gains are down so naturally taxes on gains would be significantly reduced.

In the early 80's the rates increased through the recession and didn't decrease until the rate moved from 20% to 28%. It took 10 years to get back to the pre-28% level and those were sound economic years. Nothing is black and white but I would be reluctant to believe that raising the capital gain tax would increase tax revenue.
 
Horn6721,

I wouldn't call this defending the statement but here is what I have to say about CGs statement.

Let's say the country is made up of 10 people. Top 2 make $5 a head and mostly in investment income. Middle 5 make $3 a head and the bottom make $1 per head. As a whole we make $28. Now let's say we tweak it so that the top make $9, the middle makes $2 and the bottom still makes their $1. GDP has grown marginally($29) but in such a manner that the majority of people get a much smaller slice. That is the pattern we are seeing. Placing GDP as the paramount consideration is a problem. Unless trickle down works equally well for everyone, then I don't support 'trickle down' as the guiding economic principle for my country.
 
Shiner,

To me, your reply makes my point. You argue that we can't achieve fairness therefore it should not be a goal. I agree, it is a difficult problem and most efforts to throw money at it are misguided but that alone does not make "fairness" a four letter word.
 
FAIR IS WHAT LIFE ISN'T


And re the cartoon above: everybody pays taxes, the braying about some people not paying any relates only to income taxes, which are the only non regressive tax there is.
 
how is sales tax regressive? I know your answer, but I think it is absurd. My rich friends pay 8.25% of what they spend shopping on tax as do I. How am I being treated unfairly?
 
I don't know where that simplified chart came from (Heritage? Cato?), but it is a forensic device, not an analysis. There is no notation for the 1969 CG rate increase, or the 1990 and 1993 increases or 1978 two step decrease because they do not fit the narrative. The 1981 experience does not fit either (revenues did not begin to increase until two years after the cut), and is glossed over with a vague reference to "early 80's recession". The game is an old one. Give credit for good news to whatever you are a proponent of, ignore the business cycle when it suits you, and blame the same business cycle (recessions) for inconvenient data. All sides play it. This stuff is complex, and most economists disagree with you. They might be right, maybe not. But lets not pretend that Gibson's assertions are TRUTH, based upon some think tank chart.

The CBO conclusion: Because taxpayers can choose when to realize capital gains (and losses), more gains are realized when tax rates are lower. However, over time, the increase in realizations induced by lower tax rates is not sufficient to offset the direct impact on revenues from the tax reduction itself, for two reasons. First, revenues will always increase by less than realizations following a tax cut because gains are taxed at the lower rate… Second, increases in realizations are generally much larger in the short term than in the long term because some of the additional revenues in the short term come from gains that would have been realized in later years. …

Separating the effects of changes in the tax rate from other factors affecting capital gains realizations is difficult. The best estimates of taxpayers’ response to changes in the capital gains tax rate do not suggest a large revenue increase from additional realizations of capital gains–and certainly not an increase large enough to offset the losses from a lower rate.

The Link

You may accept it as true, but it is faith, not economics that drives this particular supply side belief. it might actually be true... economic theories are notoriously difficult to prove. The preponderence of opinion disputes your position, but it is still just opinion.
Here is a serious academic effort at untangling the issue, but it is dense.http://www.brookings.edu/research/books/1999/gains
 
By the way Horn6721, here is what Obama actually said.

GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.



OBAMA: Well, that might happen, or it might not. It depends on what's happening on Wall Street and how business is going. I think the biggest problem that we've got on Wall Street right now is the fact that we got have a housing crisis that this president has not been attentive to and that it took John McCain three tries before he got it right.

Obama was right on this one.
 
Yes. obviously made up numbers. Perhaps the effort to use numbers clouded rather than illuminated my arguement.

My point was that given a choice between a system that
a) increases GDP but doesn't increase wealth for a majority, or
b) a system that doesn't in increase GDP as much but allows for a broader section of the country to take a cut,
...I would opt for the second.

Or another way of putting it, I would opt for a focus on increasing the well being of the majority of citizensas opposed to a system focused on strictly on GDP as the ultimate measurement of success. I would want both to pursue growth but I would sacrifice some of the top end gains to ensure that more people experienced the rising tide.
 
Uninformed,

I have doubts about this statement "It(tax rate increase) will obviously lead to fewer jobs created and lower economic growth."

A perception of increased demand is what causes employers to hire. they don't hire just because they have more cash on hand.

If you want to stimulate demand, you put the cash in the hand of the person that will spend it as soon as he gets it, not the guy who will sit on it until the demand signal beckons.

Banks are sitting on a lot of cash and reticent to lend, it is because they are concerned about weak demand, not taxes.
 
If giving job creators more money (in the form of lower taxes) leads to ...more jobs.

Why haven't we seen more jobs as a result of this...
"Not surprisingly, Wall Street and the top of corporate America are doing extremely well as of June 2011. For example, in Q1 of 2011, America's top corporations reported 31% profit growth and a 31% reduction in taxes, the latter due to profit outsourcing to low tax rate countries. Somewhere around 40% of the profits in the S&P 500 come from overseas and stay overseas, with about half of these 500 top corporations having their headquarters in tax havens. If the corporations don't repatriate their profits, they pay no U.S. taxes. The year 2010 was a record year for compensation on Wall Street, while corporate CEO compensation rose by over 30%, most Americans struggled. In 2010 a dozen major companies, including GE, Verizon, Boeing, Wells Fargo, and Fed Ex paid US tax rates between -0.7% and -9.2%. Production, employment, profits, and taxes have all been outsourced. Major U.S. corporations are currently lobbying to have another "tax-repatriation" window like that in 2004 where they can bring back corporate profits at a 5.25% tax rate versus the usual 35% US corporate tax rate. Ordinary working citizens with the lowest incomes are taxed at 10%."
 
Whitman, I want to ask you why weren't Barney Frank and Chris Dodd paying attention to the crisis they created, but I know it would not do any good.
rolleyes.gif
 
I have never thought a level playing field should be put forth as a realistic goal. That is not how the world works.

I think we should have a set of government programs that insure that the worst of life's outcomes can be cut out of anyone's distribution of future outcomes. We need a system that preserves incentives for hard work and improving one's station in life while making sure no one goes hungry or is locked out of achieving a reasonable education.

The government plans in place right now are way beyond the model I prefer and likely perpetuate unemployment or underwrite things like college education that many folks don't need and regret pursuing. What makes it worse is that we cant afford these programs and are borrowing against future generations income to perpetuate many of the ineffective plans in place.

I wish we could have a multi-temporal analysis of fairness rather than tug on the heartstrings on swing voters about the vague notion of injustice.
 
very simple. the market will dertermine what is "fair" quickly and efficiently. price anything too high and the market will not have any buyers. too low, and you run out of supply. doesn't matter what it is. investments, healthcare, groceries, etc. let the market work and fix what needs to be fixed. that will tell you what is most fair. once you introduce an outside force, then one way or another the market is manipulated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top