An objection has been made about the Snookie Question, that it is little more than an attempt to justify rich people having less taxes.
The basic point about the Snookie Question is that in addition to raising money, taxes have motives. Alcohol and cigarettes are taxed because they are felt to be harmful, short term gains are taxed more than long term gains because they are felt to be less advantageous to the economy, import taxes are thought to protect domestic industries. There was a recent Senate hearing where general business exemptions for oil companies were specifically targeted for removal because oil prices were rising and politicians wanted to hurt somebody associated with them. There will always be arguments over the accuracy of these policies--for example, many think import tariffs are bad for everyone--but, nonetheless, governments approach taxation as more than a revenue source; they think taxes a tool.
Snookie only takes the next step. In a world where the ability of the government to make a good "investment" is questioned, why not tax and distribute income based on how the money of the taxed and the tax recipients would benefit society. In that light, the debate over Snookie's investment/social value versus Bill Gates' doesn't seem that difficult.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment