Fair Share
by Joseph Rowlands

One of the most common, and most poisonous, ideas in politics is the idea of paying a fair share. Politicians, particularly leftist politicians, repeated this phrase over and over to justify ever greater taxes and government intervention. The claim is that they only want the rich to pay an appropriate amount, and that they currently are not paying enough.

One of the biggest problems with the fair share idea is that there is apparently no actual definition of fair share. There's no amount that if wealthy people paid it, it would be considered enough.

This means that the cry for people to pay their fair share is a deception. It provides the illusion that there is a quantity or percentage that would be enough, and we just haven't hit it yet. In fact, there is no such thing as a fair share. It is an excuse to tax them ever more, without limit.

It is also deceptive because it plays on a popular myth that rich people don't have to pay taxes. Statistics showing otherwise don't seem to matter. It isn't an attempt at communicating facts clearly. It is an attempt to misrepresent the truth, and rely on unspoken fictions.

This isn't to say that those who talk about fair share don't believe it. They almost certainly do. But they keep the language vague for a couple of reasons. One is that the implications of a clear statement might be repulsive to many. A second reason is that their own thinking is vague, and they may not recognize the vagueness. Implying the rich don't pay taxes may fit into their view of the world, and they don't see a problem with not stating it clearly because they think it goes without saying.

So if people do believe in something called a fair share, what is it exactly? Where do they draw the line?

I suspect that they don't actually draw a line. They have a sense that rich people don't pay enough, and think they should pay more, but they haven't defined in clear terms how far that goes. No matter what level existed, they would always think that there should be more.

What kind of moral ideal are they envisioning that ever greater taxation is fair? Why is it fair for one to pay a larger share to support the government than another? Why is it fair for one person to pay a larger percent in taxes? What is the ideal behind all of this?

The ideal is "from each according to his ability". Rich people, by definition, have more money than poor people. If more money is needed or desired for government, then those most able to pay should pay. Anything less is unfair.

The logical conclusion of this ideal is that people should be exactly equal in assets or income. If someone is making more than another, than it is only fair that they contribute more to the common good. And no matter how much they are taxed, they should be taxed ever more until they no longer make more than others.

We can see why they don't discuss "fair share" in terms of end goals. They may not actually desire a world where everyone is forced to have equal income or wealth. They may simply think of it in terms of how we should change from the current position. If we need to tax more, it should come from those most able to afford it. This is not the same as saying that we should all be equal. It is only saying what the guiding principle of change should be. If there is money left over at the end, they may be welcome to keep it.

So the same people who want the rich to pay their "fair share" may not consciously desire an egalitarian society. They may even find the concept repulsive. They're not socialists, after all! That isn't their goal at all. But while it may not be the goal, it is the logical end point to each of their steps. And that is why conservatives or libertarians accuse the left of being socialists. The left may object that they don't want a socialist system, but don't realize that their preferred method of change leads there nonetheless.

Discuss this Article (11 messages)