It’s time for a break from books and a slide into the editorial pages of the nations great (and not-so great) newspapers. The
Washington Post recently began publishing a remarkably useful tool for newshounds such as myself. They’ve got a new blog by the name of
The Editorialist, put together by a fella named Rob Anderson. He goes around and collects links and quick summaries of editorials/columns from the papers, then puts ‘em all in one place, sorted by topic. Updated at least once a day, I’m loving it!
Today he linked to an editorial piece in the
Salt Lake Tribune. Titled
Simple reform: Flat income tax rate likely would favor the wealthy, this piece discusses the likelihood of the Utah legislature passing a flat income tax rate to replace the “progressive” rate currently in place. It is rather typical of editorials on this topic and, unfortunately, displays a very clear bias on the issue and uses sneaky arguments to make the point. It begins:
“The Legislature seems to be headed toward an income-tax "reform" that would replace the system of deductions and individual exemptions with one of credits based on federal filing status or itemized deductions and personal exemptions. It also would impose a flat 5 percent tax rate. At this writing, that's about all we know. But philosophically, it's enough.”
Now it could be just me, but it seems like one would be better off learning all the details about something as notoriously complex as tax policy before going on the record with specific criticisms. In addition, stating that you don’t need to know the facts because your argument rests solely on “philosophical” merit strikes me as a different way of saying that you’ve got nothing but hot air behind it (particularly since the philosophy in question is never laid out). I’m all in favor of philosophical arguments and justifications but prefer those that operate hand-in-hand with reality rather than independently thereof. I guess what I’m trying to say is, no, that’s not “enough”, “philosophically” or otherwise. That statement, that “But philosophically, it’s enough” statement states quite simply that the editor(s) who wrote this cannot conceive of any justification for a flat tax on incomes and that any details of the plan are irrelevant in the face of a philosophical objection. Sorry, guys, but that’s just not the way things work.
The authors didn’t lay out their philosophy, but even this short editorial has enough snide remarks and implications to allow speculation. Take, for example, this one: “Any system that imposes a flat tax rate is likely to favor the wealthiest taxpayers.” It’s interesting that, despite the assertion that “philosophically, it’s enough”, the editors choose to caveat their disapproval with the weak “is likely to” here. The opening paragraph is supposed to be hard-hitting and to attract interest, sure, but it shouldn’t assert facts that later statements like this deny. As for the statement’s substance (such as it is), here we have an example of an appeal to justice, a kind of logical fallacy. The editors provide no evidence that a flat tax will
favor “the rich,” they simply assert it and hope that no one challenges them. A flat tax may be less expensive for “the rich” than the current system (I won’t speak to this until I see the details of the plan) but one could make a very valid argument that the “progressive tax” favors those in the lowest tax brackets. Is it a favor to “the rich” to try and create a tax code that favors no group?
The editors follow that one up with this bit of rhetorical slight of hand: “The U.S. economy is concentrating ever more wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people. That would suggest that a disinterested policymaker would make the tax system more progressive, not less.” Translation: “only someone with an unfair bias or a terminal case of stupidity could disagree with a ‘progressive’ tax system.” They don’t say why the relative concentrations of wealth are a good or bad thing nor why someone with nothing to gain or lose would favor an even more “progressive” system, they just present a reference to some statistics, then use this to somehow prove that the world ought to be different. The editors believe very strongly in “progressive” tax rates, we can see that clearly. They don’t, however, clearly make a logical case for their moralizations.
Just wait, there’s more: “Gov. Jon Huntsman and his legislative allies call this tax "reform" because it will be simpler and because they say it will encourage economic development...simplicity and equity are not the same thing. The rich man can more easily afford to pay 7 percent on his second $100,000 than the poor man can afford to pay 5 percent on his second $10,000.” Last I checked,
equity has more to do with impartiality than it does with social engineering. The editors have, in this one little bit, tried to ridicule the idea that the legislature is working towards reform by putting it in quotation marks, and used extreme examples and generalizations to create an emotional basis for opposing the flat tax proposal. We can argue over whether or not a tax code that encourages economic development and is easy for citizens to understand would be a reform, but not until we have the full set of facts. Their concept of “rich” may need some fine-tuning, too. I just learned that undergraduate tuition at George Washington University is over $30,000 per year (not counting room, board and fees). A “rich” household making $150,000/year with two or three kids in school might very well find that extra 2% tax rate much more onerous than a single high-school dropout making $20,000/year while living in her parents’ basement. Statements like these add nothing to the public discourse on the topic of taxation policy. They muddy the waters, stir up emotions, disguise facts and nuance, and encourage others to fabricate arguments out of thin air. Not what I’d want from my newspaper editors, that’s for sure.
One more doozy before I sign off: “Besides, an educated work force or infrastructure or quality of life are probably more important to most businesses than the tax rate.” There we go with the prevarications again (“probably”). So much for “it’s enough”, eh? I have no idea what business owners and managers find appealing, I admit it. I’m willing to bet, though, that so many businesses are incorporated in the great state of Delaware not because of the fabulous schools, wonderful scenery, regular maintenance of the Delaware Memorial Bridge, and pristine air quality (despite I-95 and the NJ Turnpike), but rather because of favorable policies, tax and otherwise, set up by DE to attract them. I’d be curious to see what the Salt Lake Journal thinks of those.
“Nope, this looks like tax "reform" for the rich” they say in an editorial that looks like “propaganda for the masses.”
Labels: Editorials
