We can do better than this for a moral argument
Reader comment on: Taxes and Fairness
Submitted by Marc Segan (United States), Sep 22, 2011 11:15
That's the best we can do for a moral case? This argument is still all about why it doesn't work in achieving the taxers' objectives. How about this?: taking other peoples' stuff is wrong.
Yes, the policy seems even more risible because it doesn't work even on its own terms, but this argument is mainly a utilitarian argument.
As for the assertion that "it cannot be 'fair' to make everyone worse off". That's neither an accurate restatement of the result nor is it a reasonable statement of the taxers' goals. First, it doesn't make everyone worse off. It makes the aggregate worse off. There are obviously some people whose position is indeed better. Second, it's perfectly legitimate to take the position that as long as the position of the worst-off is improved, then it's ok to reduce overall wealth. In fact, that seems to be Barack Obama's position. I can disagree, but it's not prima facie illogical or morally wrong.
Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.
The Future of Capitalism replies:
Thanks for the intelligent comment. I don't recall whether your criticism applies only to the part of the piece I excerpted or whether the rest of the piece as it appeared in the WSJ got into some of the issues you mentioned.
Other reader comments on this item
|⇒ We can do better than this for a moral argument|
[w/response] [160 words]
|Marc Segan||Sep 22, 2011 11:15|
|↔ Addendum to my own comment [60 words]||Marc Segan||Sep 22, 2011 11:39|
Comment on this item