So instead of the daily update, I decided it would be easier to have it be a weekly thing instead.
Fairness...AH AH AH. Fairness has 8 letters; let's count with me. One, Two, Three..Eight...AH AH AH. Now that the Count has educated the young on their numbers, we shall proceed.
There are many thoughts on what fairness means, because as most things, it is in the eye of the beholder. My definition is that people should be treated equally and based upon their situation, they should contribute what they can to help the whole.
In relation to schools, is it fair to accept someone over another because of family history and the ability to pay for the education? Of course not! Family legacies should not even be slightly considered when debating whether to accept an applicant or not. Money should also not be part of the decision for the acceptance committee. If the applicant gets accepted then he or she should be given all the financial help possible because otherwise only wealthy children will be given a highly rated (and expensive) education as opposed to those children who are more qualified, in terms of merit.
Fairness in relation to taxes, government services, employment opportunities, and housing opportunities strike are at the center of class conflicts around the world.
The average person in the United States has probably experienced or at least heard of the above mentioned dimensions of fairness. Sure we all want our taxes to be lower than they are now, who doesn't (disregarding the consequences of such actions)? This is probably the first folly. What do taxes pay for? A lot of important services that are essential for people to live their lives without having to worry about if the next day they will have food on their table, or even a table at all.
So then the average American will ask: "Why do I have to pay more taxes (as a % of my income) than my neighbor who earns less than I do. It should be equal". The answer is fairly simple...individuals who make just enough to survive cannot handle the burden to pay more taxes or they will starve and or go bankrupt.
Let me show an example: Pretend that the tax rate is 25% of income for everyone. Bobby makes $80,000 a year and will have to pay $20,000 in taxes, so he is left with $60,000 to do with as he likes. Mary is making $250,000 a year and will have to pay $62,500 in taxes and will be left with $187,500. Jerry is making $20,000 a year and has to pay $5,000 in taxes and will be left with $15,000. Can Bobby survive and have a good life with a house, car, and other things...yes. Can Mary have the same..of course! She will probably have a lot more too. Can Jerry live a good life...no. The $20,000 he makes is barely enough for the rent, car (if he even has one..most likely relies on public transportation for all of his transportation needs...which is fine but it can be unreliable), and then food on top of that. I think it's fair to assume that there is a problem with the situation presented here.
So why does a progressive tax system work? The people who can afford to pay more taxes, do...and the people who cannot afford to pay much or any taxes pay less or none at all. It releases the burden on the less well-off so they can provide for themselves as much as they can. If it is not enough, the government has a duty to help this individual or family so they can live productive lives. Is Mary going to miss a couple extra thousand dollars..possibly, but surely a lot less than Bobby and most importantly Jerry.
The one factor that people arguing against a progressive tax system can not understand is that the people that are well-off are just that, because of the system that is currently in place. It would be only fair that the people that benefit from our system and live well-off lives should pay a little more for their own lifestyle.
(Corporate taxes will be discussed in a later blog post, possibly in a month or so)
Government services are also part of the fairness debate. For those who cannot completely provide for themselves, the government must step in and provide. The problems associated with doing nothing far outweigh the cost of providing for the people. Food stamps are the perfect example. For a family that lives close to the poverty line or below it, food stamps are essential to the health of both children and parent(s). How will the children get nutrition if their parent(s) pay-check is mostly being used for rent and transportation? To lessen the negative externalities (effects) of a case where this happens, the government must step in so the cost to society and to people is minimized. Who wants starving children with health problems? It could have all been avoided; the children would be well fed and healthy and society would not have the burden of taking care of the sickly if money was given to the parent(s) to buy food for their children.
Employment opportunities were the base cause of the Winter of Discontent in the Middle East. Young people could not obtain work, simple as that. The same problem is creeping up in the US also, although it is still in its early stages here. Employers must be fair in regards to hiring everyone; one group cannot be singled out of all hiring because it will lead to protests, possibly lawsuits, and terrible public relations...not to mention just how plainly wrong it is to discriminate while hiring. Corporations and sometimes governments have to be fair to the people and give them employment opportunities or civil unrest may occur. (I have more to say on this but at a later time)
Housing opportunities were about a 1/3 to a 1/2 of the reasons Israel had its demonstrations and is also picking up steam in the US. The property prices in Israel have been going up so much that many people cannot afford to purchase a home or even pay rent in their neighborhoods anymore. The rich can do what they want because they can pay for it...a vacation home in Eilat..sure why not..which brings up property values, making it hard for people that already live in that city to purchase a home there. In the US, it has to do more with access and schools. Property taxes are the main source of school funding, so it's fairly easy to see that the more prominent an area, the better the schools (better funded schools usually have better results, although there are other aspects to consider). It's also safe to assume that a parent wants his or her child to go to a good school. So how does the child have access to the good schools....he or she must live in the designated school area. The school area is filled with expensive homes and little to no affordable housing for the parent(s) of the child to move into so that their child can attend this good school. Is it fair to exclude people from a good education simply because they cannot afford to live in an area..of course not! Every person should have access to a good education if he or she desires and they should not be limited based on the amount of money he or she (or his or her parents earn) or based on where they live.
Next week I'll dig into equality,
Cheers
No comments:
Post a Comment