Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktFrom The Economist –
The politics of fairness
Fairly confusing
Feb 2nd 2012, 14:31 by W.W. | IOWA CITY
FAIRNESS played a central role in Barack Obama’s state-of-the-union address, and I suspect it will play a central role in the president’s re-election campaign. But what does Mr Obama have in mind when he deploys the f-word? It may not be the case that fairness is, as Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, puts it, “a concept invented so dumb people could participate in arguments”. But it cannot be denied that fairness is an idea both mutable and contested. Indeed, last week’s state-of-the-union address seems to contain several distinct conceptions of fairness worth drawing out and reflecting upon.
Toward the beginning of his speech, as Mr Obama was trying to draw a parallel between post-second world war America and today’s post-Iraq war America, he offered this rather stark choice:
We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well while a growing number of Americans barely get by, or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.
Here we have three distinct conceptions of fairness in a single sentence.
To get a “fair shot” is to be offered the opportunity to participate fully and succeed within the country’s institutions. This is, I think, the least controversial conception of fairness in America’s political discourse. Conservatives who strenuously object to the idea that the American system should aim at “equality of outcomes” will sometimes affirm “equality of opportunity” as an alternative. But this is a mistake. To really equalise opportunity requires precisely the sort of intolerably constant, comprehensive, invasive redistribution conservatives rightly believe to be required for the equalisation of outcomes. If one is prepared to accept substantial inequalities in outcome, it follows that one is also prepared to accept substantial inequalities in opportunity.
Getting a fair shot doesn’t require equalising opportunity so much as ensuring that everyone has a good enough chance in life. The content of “good enough” is of course open to debate, but most Americans seem to agree that access to a good education is the greater part of a “good enough” and thus fair shot. Naturally, there is strong partisan disagreement over the kinds of education reform that will do right by young Americans. And there is also disagreement over elements of a “fair shot” beyond education. For example, many liberals believe workers don’t have a fair shot at achieving a decent level of economic security without robust collective-bargaining rights. And many conservatives believe that an overly-strong labour movement invites outsourcing by raising domestic costs, and thereby deprives American workers of a fair shot at employment. There may be some fact of the matter about which policies are most likely to benefit students or workers. But if one is more fair then the other, how would we know?
What is it to do one’s “fair share”? In small groups, it’s clear enough. If my friend and I are shoveling the front walk, my fair share of shoveling, and his, is about half. Often we adjust for differences in ability. If I am big and strong and my friend is small and frail, his fair share may be as much as he can manage. That won’t mean that the whole remainder is my fair share, though. If we’re going to get the walk shoveled, I may have to do a bit more than my fair share. These things get complicated quickly. That’s why the question of what it means for an American do his or her fair share, qua citizen, is completely baffling.
Suppose I’m a surgeon pulling down six figures. Perhaps doing my fair share is to pay 33% of my income in taxes. But, hey, wait! My sister, who could have been a surgeon, chose instead to make pottery in a little hippie arts colony. She makes only as much as she needs to get by, works relatively short hours, smokes a lot of weed with her artist friends, and pays no federal income tax at all! If paying 33% of the money I make saving lives is doing my fair share, then it’s hard to see how my sister—who could have been a surgeon, or some kind of job- and/or welfare-creating entrepreneur—is doing hers. But if she is doing hers, just playing with clay out there in the woods, benefiting next to no one, paying no taxes, then clearly I’m doing way more than my fair share. Which seems, you know, unfair.
Are you doing your fair share? How would one know? Actually, I just made myself feel slightly guilty for not going to med school and joining Médecins Sans Frontières. But unless government can come up with a way of taxing the leisure of people who aren’t doing as much as they might for kith and country, I reckon I’ll just stick to part-time pro blogging and let all you 9-to-5 suckers finance the necessary road-building and foreigner-bombing.
Playing by the same set of rules—the president’s third notion fairness in the passage above—is at least as important to fairness as the sufficiency of a “fair shot” and the proportionality of a “fair share”. A political economy with rules as convoluted as ours is sure to fail by the “same rules” criterion. Why should people who prefer leisure to income face lower tax rates? Why should parents and homeowners get tax breaks single renters don’t get? Why should young black men get longer sentences than young white women who commit the same crimes? Why should some industries get subsidies unavailable to others? In every case, they shouldn’t. It’s unfair. But it is this sense of fairness I think Mr Obama cares least about.
At one point in his address, Mr Obama says “[i]t’s not fair when foreign manufacturers have a leg up on ours only because they’re heavily subsidized.” I agree. It’s not. But just a few paragraphs earlier, Mr Obama had said:
[N]o American company should be able to avoid paying its fair share of taxes by moving jobs and profits overseas. From now on, every multinational company should have to pay a basic minimum tax. And every penny should go towards lowering taxes for companies that choose to stay here and hire here in America.
… [I]f you’re an American manufacturer, you should get a bigger tax cut. If you’re a high-tech manufacturer, we should double the tax deduction you get for making your products here. And if you want to relocate in a community that was hit hard when a factory left town, you should get help financing a new plant, equipment, or training for new workers.
So my message is simple. It is time to stop rewarding businesses that ship jobs overseas, and start rewarding companies that create jobs right here in America.
On the one hand, Mr Obama argues it’s unfair when foreign government subsidise their manufacturers. On the other hand, he seems to think subsidising American manufacturing is not only not unfair in the same way, but is somehow required by fairness.
It’s this sort of confusion that tempts me to agree with Mr Adams when he argues that fairness is “purely subjective”. But I’ll resist the temptation. I don’t think judgments of fairness are entirely whimsical. It really is unfair to eat more than your share of the cake, or to do less than your share of the shoveling, or to get ahead by flouting reasonable rules to which others faithfully adhere. And it really is unfair that America wields so much geopolitical power; our government really does behave unfairly when it condemns other countries for doing what it does on the world stage. Of course, we didn’t hear the president complaining about this.
I would conclude not that judgments of fairness are purely subjective, but that the rhetoric of fairness is used so opportunistically that we would be wise to look upon arguments from fairness with a jaundiced eye.
All Things in Moderation 
If one looks upon arguments of fairness with a jaundiced eye, I’m willing to bet little gets resolved.
I agree that the concept of fairness is slithery. It is nonetheless part of our ethical and political dialog and the process of evolving that in a way that works will be slow.
LikeLike
The author agrees with you, MsJS. He suggests that within the American political discourse politicians use the word in such self-serving ways that we must take their pronouncements with skepticism. He uses recent speeches by BHO as exemplars.
LikeLike
Do you have a link to the original piece?
LikeLike
This is the original piece. I thought it might be behind Economist’s paywall.
LikeLike
I think that when “fairness” is used in a political speech it is largely meaningless. It’s designed to solicit applause and nothing more.
Lisa Simpson: What does it mean?
Homer Simpson: Ah, It doesn’t mean anything. It’s like “Rama Lama Ding-Dong” or “Give Peace a Chance.
LikeLike
Mark, I guess I wasn’t clear.
IMO, viewing a person’s use of the word fair with skepticism won’t get us far. To simply say its use is self-serving doesn’t get us very far, either.
Fair is a tip-of-the-iceberg word and is used differently depending on the person and circumstance. Rather than view it with a jaundiced eye or skepticism, my preference is to delve into what the author’s/speaker’s underlying meanings of the word and motivations for using it are. And I recognize that my conclusions will likely differ from others’.
And one of my conclusions is that this author seems to want to be skeptical.
LikeLike
“But unless government can come up with a way of taxing the leisure…”
Please do not give them any ideas…
LikeLike
” I would conclude not that judgments of fairness are purely subjective, but that the rhetoric of fairness is used so opportunistically that we would be wise to look upon arguments from fairness with a jaundiced eye.”
A recommendation applicable to the preceding paragraphs.
LikeLike
Pearlstein’s piece on the complex relationship between fairness & economic growth is thoughtful.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/steven-pearlstein-the-false-choice-between-equality-and-efficiency/2012/03/19/gIQAZCAmYS_story.html?wpisrc=nl_wonk
LikeLike
Given previous discussions in these here parts about what consists of “fair” taxation, I’m inclined towards the cynical view. That’s not exactly, well, fair. I believe that most if not everyone here has an opinion about what a “fair” taxation system is. As those opinions vary dramatically, fair as a word is as useful as patriotic in a political context.
A few factors impact my thinking. Taxes should come after survival. So, no debtors prison for me. The modern day version of this is the personal exemption. I favor progressive rates, but not excessively steep ones. I hit my own point of “fairness” at one dollar in three. The total taxation rate, everything included, should max out at about one dollar in three. Checking my 2010 returns and adding property tax plus a rough calculation of excise taxes, we paid about 28%. That seems reasonably fair to me, though should probably be somewhat higher given current deficit levels.
That to some around here, makes me a hypocrite. ‘Sall right. I think they’re hypocrites by that definition too.
One parenthetical note that I meant to bring up in my Notes from a Small Island post. While I was there, news came out from the Chancellor of the Exchequer (a so much better title than Treasury Secretary) that the increase of the top rate of taxation to 50% was bringing in significantly fewer funds than expected. Arthur Laffer must be pleased.
BB
LikeLike
Interesting UK news, BB.
I posted The Economist column b/c of our tax discussion. I am right with you on subjective, as opposed to objective, notions of fairness. The article falls short in this respect: it does not suggest either a process or a philosophy for determining “objective” fairness. The author believes that it exists, but that it is unlikely as the motivation for political rhetoric.
One of the arguments for Cato Institute’s value is its independence from politics. What Cato has held to be “fair” has not changed with the winds. I think what I like about everyone who is a regular here is that we push each other to think seriously about how to determine what is fair and just, and search our own assumptions. We may not change them; we may actually sharpen them, but we do not approach these matters like politicians do – with poorly disguised ulterior motives. As I have suggested before, we can find pols or parties that for the moment seem to represent a closer version of what we might think is rational, but we cannot rely on the parties to actually be motivated by anything but gaining elective office. Or so I think, and I am not a cynic. I am truly a skeptic, however.
LikeLike
FB:
‘Sall right. I think they’re hypocrites by that definition too.
How so?
LikeLike
The problems with Obama’s use of “fairness” are also in the intentionally vague language the surrounds the word. Like the notion if making “everyone does their (sic) fair share.”
Everyone? Does? Does what? Share? Of what?
These are sloppy words mean to mean anything anyone wants them to. Everyone hears, “Obama is going to take care of me and take those other people down.”
I think it is pure demogoguery.
LikeLike
Scott – It’s a reference to the old discussion about Buffet being a hypocrite, because he argued for higher tax rates on high earners on the basis of “fairness” but didn’t pay the higher rate himself. I wasn’t convinced.
Then again, my contrasting argument didn’t convince anyone otherwise. If one argues for lower tax rates on one’s class on the basis of “fairness”, then one is equally a hypocrite for paying the higher (unfair) rate required by law.
I think overall taxation by the federal government is somewhat lower than it should be, given the expenditures passed by Congress (controlled by both parties at different times) and signed by the President (also of both parties at different times). As I think that taxation should be progressive and that my family is roughly in the top 10%, I think my tax rates should be raised more than a family earning the medium income level. As this is an opinion reached with some consideration of fairness, I am as much a hypocrite as Warren Buffet (which is to say, not). Then again, I think those who argue for a flat tax of 10% and pay progressive rates are equally hypocritical (which is to say, not).
It’s an amusing rhetorical exercise.
BB
LikeLike
Then again, I think those who argue for a flat tax of 10% and pay progressive rates are equally hypocritical (which is to say, not).
There is the difference that it is illegal to pay less than you owe but not to pay more.
But other than that the comparison is completely sound.
LikeLike
FB:
If one argues for lower tax rates on one’s class on the basis of “fairness”, then one is equally a hypocrite for paying the higher (unfair) rate required by law.
Obviously not. You are clearly ignoring the difference between freely choosing to act in ways contrary to one’s professed beliefs, as Warren Buffet does, and being compelled by the threat of force to act in ways contrary to one’s professed beliefs, as those of us who pay higher taxes than we think we should are. This is a fairly significant, and highly relevant, difference to ignore. Little wonder that your argument didn’t convince anyone.
LikeLike
Yours didn’t convince anyone either. So what? The desire to slap a pejorative label on Buffet only convinced me that his arguments stung.
BB
LikeLike
Buffett’s argument doesn’t sting in the least. It is risible, as is the comparison of paying less than you claim you should pay and paying more than you think you should because the government gives you no choice.
LikeLike
FB:
Yours didn’t convince anyone either. So what?
We were discussing your argument, not mine. I have explained why your if/then statement isn’t a rational argument. I take it from your attempt to change the topic that you now see why your argument doesn’t make a lot of sense.
BTW, both qb and mcwing agreed with my argument, and if I remember correctly, ashot was at least somewhat sympathetic to it as well.
The desire to slap a pejorative label on Buffet only convinced me that his arguments stung.
Now why in the world would I be “stung” by Buffet’s claim that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary, and that he should pay more? Nope, I called Buffet a lying hypocrite because a) he asserts things he almost certainly knows to be untrue and b) he professes to hold beliefs that are contrary to his actions.
LikeLike