In an earlier thread one of the questions posed was "Is The Current Tax Policy Fair?". The question was appropriate because that seems to be the topic of conversation on the campaign trail, on television news and at the local water coolers at the office. And indeed this topic elicited some very interesting responses. But let's view this subject from a different angle.

Should the goal for tax policy be "fairness?" And is tax fairness even obtainable?

Fundamentally it is safe to assume that most citizens resent the fact that a government feels it has any entitlement to a portion of their hard earned income and/or investments. However, realistically most people also understand the need for taxes to help ensure their defense, health sanitation, etc. In that same vein they also get terribly upset if taxes are not used to the best advantage. They also get upset as did Robin Hood and is merry band of men with the likes of the Sheriff of Nottingham whom apparently believed he was entitled to what he felt he was so entitled.

The present Administration has declared class warfare on the so called 1% that amounts no more so than a scheme whose aim is wealth redistribution.
Let me digress long enough to say that this approach will fail and as always failed because the 1% can and will move and/or can create loopholes that will keep government accounts busy for the next hundred years.

Given this brief introduction it is clear that the tax policy's goal of "fairness" will fail and has always failed because its meaning is obsecure and because many of us and perhaps all of us will personally believe that their tax rate unfairly targets them.

The objective of an effective tax policy is that it must be competitive so that it creates competition between city to city, state to state ,country to country (Amity Shales WSJ 4/10/12)

From Kennedy's tax cuts in the 1960's to Bush's tax cuts in 2002 and all in between have demonstrated that by lower taxes this nation becomes competitive, spurs growth ,produces greater revenue and lowers unemployment. If national leaders shift their obsession from tax fairness (class warfare) to tax policy that enhances our competition they can enact effect and revnue producing tax policy.

Unless and until this nation's leaders effect predictable and competitve tax policy that creates monetary motitvation for business's to invest and policy that meets their demand for predictable future expectation this country will remain in an economic slump.

So perhaps the nation should shift discussion of tax policy from one of "fairness" to one of "competitiveness"?

Originally Posted by rubicon

In an earlier thread one of the questions posed was "Is The Current Tax Policy Fair?". The question was appropriate because that seems to be the topic of conversation on the campaign trail, on television news and at the local water coolers at the office. And indeed this topic elicited some very interesting responses. But let's view this subject from a different angle.

Should the goal for tax policy be "fairness?" And is tax fairness even obtainable?

Fundamentally it is safe to assume that most citizens resent the fact that a government feels it has any entitlement to a portion of their hard earned income and/or investments. However, realistically most people also understand the need for taxes to help ensure their defense, health sanitation, etc. In that same vein they also get terribly upset if taxes are not used to the best advantage. They also get upset as did Robin Hood and is merry band of men with the likes of the Sheriff of Nottingham whom apparently believed he was entitled to what he felt he was so entitled.

The present Administration has declared class warfare on the so called 1% that amounts no more so than a scheme whose aim is wealth redistribution.
Let me digress long enough to say that this approach will fail and as always failed because the 1% can and will move and/or can create loopholes that will keep government accounts busy for the next hundred years.

Given this brief introduction it is clear that the tax policy's goal of "fairness" will fail and has always failed because its meaning is obsecure and because many of us and perhaps all of us will personally believe that their tax rate unfairly targets them.

The objective of an effective tax policy is that it must be competitive so that it creates competition between city to city, state to state ,country to country (Amity Shales WSJ 4/10/12)

From Kennedy's tax cuts in the 1960's to Bush's tax cuts in 2002 and all in between have demonstrated that by lower taxes this nation becomes competitive, spurs growth ,produces greater revenue and lowers unemployment. If national leaders shift their obsession from tax fairness (class warfare) to tax policy that enhances our competition they can enact effect and revnue producing tax policy.

Unless and until this nation's leaders effect predictable and competitve tax policy that creates monetary motitvation for business's to invest and policy that meets their demand for predictable future expectation this country will remain in an economic slump.

Very well said RUBICON and I offer to you one of the definitions of fairness as provided to me by several members of the Occupy Tampa group and this is not even close to exaggeration.....ALL I spoke with were unemployed....ALL were collecting some sort of government check...ALL I spoke with explained that FAIR was that the 1% pay more so that they could get more, and more to them was not opportunity but money.

among other aspects of considering competitive-ness, they should investigate the companies that are getting tax breaks and then look at the executive compensation of each of those companies.

The target should be if a company is getting low or no tax benefit and the executives are collecting multi million compensation packages a red flag should go up. One could interpret this reality as the tax relief allows for easier accomplishment of financial goal resulting in the executives getting mult million dollar compensation. In a manner of speaking the federal government, via we the people are in essence subsidizing their accomplishment.

Yes the tax incentives are intended to allow companies certain benefits in return for some action on their part. The investigation should also take into account the number of jobs created by these companies. The objective should be to disqualify ANY company getting a tax break that is creating jobs outside the USA. Why? Because like the government is subsidizing the executives getting multi million dollar compensation packages, they are also being subsidized for creating jobs outside the USA.

This of course like all other actions to make the tax fair or competitive involves threatening the company lobbyists and special interest groups and their contributions to the politicians who allow these inequities and subsidies to continue. Hence the politicians continuing to benefit from the tax breaks allowed and we should consider the tax breaks do in fact thus subsidize the benefit to the politicians.

As a result such an investigation will never ever come to pass.

The politicians are on the sunny side of all actions taken and or allowed for their benefit, while we the people get the short end of the stick. Especially those who are not getting the "hand outs" which are of course protecting the politicians voting blocks.

Nothing about the above is fair.

The nice thing about this subject is it is not partisan because whether you are an R or a D you are getting screwed over as a result.

The inequitable taxation situation needs a revolution. It is the poster child for what is wrong with the government of the USA.

btk

billethkid: Well said and I agree whole heartedly. Having said that I never deal in absolutes. So there may be exceptions but overall I am against corporate welfare. In that same vein I recognize there are some individuals who need help. However there are far too many people living off the dole and milking the system The government needs to do a better job of monitoring their programs.