Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Adam's Reply: The Rich and Taxes

I must always salute Adam and his philosophical fortitude.

Adam has left a new comment on your post "The Rich and Taxation":

Thoughts:

1) I'm fairly certain that most informed do not hold (R). Just because someone is not struggling with the wealth they have is not a sufficient reason for their being morally/practically obligated to do give up a greater percentage of their wealth, even if they can afford to do so. In any case, some have held worse arguments before so perhaps some do hold (R). However, I suspect it doesn't accurately capture their view.

2) The logic is incorrect. There are really two worries here. First, the argument seems to be analyzed via first-order logic, but actually involves a deontic premise (premise (2)). Second, even the analysis in first-order logic is incorrect. Focus on the latter first. In order for Premise (2) to be false the consequent must be false while the antecedent is true. Likewise, with (3). When analyzed using in Deontic logic, we first have to adopt a particular interpretation. The interpretation we choose will tell us what it takes for a conditional roughly like 'if x can y, then x should z' to be true (I'm leaving the deontic operators where they appear in the English sentence which hides scope and other things).

3) I don't see any equivocation between the premises nor the premises and conclusion.

4) 'Should' and 'ought' have the same meaning. If someone thinks you should do x they think you ought to do x, unless they fail to understand the terms.

5) 'Can' and 'should' do not mean the same thing. But, I don't see why that matters. As you point out, (2) is underwritten by some ethical or practical argument. So, the derivation of the consequent of (2) from the antecedent of (2) is more than just synonymy. But, just showing that they are not synonymous doesn't undermine the argument that underwrites (2), since, I take it the argument would not appeal to synonymy...right?

6) It's probably true that 'can' does not always entail 'should'. I can shoot my neighbors, but I shouldn't, is true as far as I can see. But, be able to do what is morally right seems to entail that I should. I take most would think that the rich can afford to pay more taxes. Separately, they think that persons deserve equality along some morally important axis. They also think that an increase in revenue and a particular distribution scheme would achieve this (or move toward achieving this). They reason, then, that there are folks in a position to help achieve the morally better state of affairs and so they should. (This is the more nuanced position I hinted at above, be it correct or incorrect).

7) It is unclear how the numbers show that the rich pay their fair share. As a start, we need a reasonable view about what fairness comes too here. It is implausible that in this context fairness means 'paying more than others'. Fairness seems to at least be about a balance of the burdens and benefits, where those burdens and benefits include more than monetary burdens and benefits whatever they include. I take it that the worry folks struggle with is that this balance is off and that the wealthy are in a position to do something about this. Should they? Perhaps that's an open question that the numbers pointed to don't answer.

Posted by at No comments:

The Rich and Taxation

In the current political climate I have found it strange that Democrats and many on the left are really ‘hammering’ the rich. Perhaps the following argument can sum this up, which I label as (R). I think (R) sums up the position of many Democrats and liberals, and really sounds very much like arguments I’ve heard Obama use.

1. If the rich aren’t struggling to make ends meet, then they can afford to pay more in taxes.

2. If the rich can afford to pay more in taxes, then they should pay more in taxes.

Therefore,

3. If the rich aren’t struggling to make ends meet, then they should pay more in taxes.

In logical notation:

1. (~s → c)

2. (c → t)

3. /:. (~s → t) CA 1, 2

So, is (R) logically valid and logically sound? (R) is valid, because argument is known as a chain argument, or sometimes called a transitive argument. But what about logical soundness? Soundness deals with the truth of the argument. Are the premises true? I argue that they are not, and here’s why.

First off, being rich according to the administration is anyone making $250,000/year or more. At one time VP Joe Biden said $125,000/year or more, but currently the mantra is $250,000/year or more so I’ll stick with that. With this in mind, consider the consequences of both (R2) and (R3), “…then they [the rich] should pay more in taxes.” I believe this to be false, and this is false then (R2) and (R3) are both false and (R) is not a sound argument. (Don’t worry; I’m not going to do truth-tables.)

Keeping the rich at $250,000/year or more, let’s look at the numbers. According to Stephen Moore (2007):

The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shoul­dered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.[1]

The Heritage Foundation (2011) substantiates this claim by saying, “The top 1 percent of income earners paid 38 percent of all federal income taxes in 2008, while the bottom 50 percent paid only 3 percent. Forty-nine percent of U.S. households paid no federal income tax at all.”[2]

I like the way that Rush Limbaugh (2010) breaks down the numbers from IRS 2001 report (no apologies to those who don’t like Rush):

Top 5% pay 53.25% of all income taxes (Down from 2000 figure: 56.47%). The top 10% pay 64.89% (Down from 2000 figure: 67.33%). The top 25% pay 82.9% (Down from 2000 figure: 84.01%). The top 50% pay 96.03% (Down from 2000 figure: 96.09%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.97% of all income taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 17.53 (2000: 20.81%) of all income. The top 5% earns 31.99 (2000: 35.30%). The top 10% earns 43.11% (2000: 46.01%); the top 25% earns 65.23% (2000: 67.15%), and the top 50% earns 86.19% (2000: 87.01%) of all the income.[3]

With our eyes bleeding from numbers, let’s get to the heart of the matter. Government programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, food stamps, unemployment benefits, etc., are paid by income taxes. These programs are put under the label of entitlements, and so spending on these programs is called entitlement spending. In recent years we’ve seen growth in entitlement spending, especially with unemployment benefits. Looking back at the above statistics, the US rich a substantial portion of the entitlement bill, well over half, but according to Democrats and the left, the rich don’t pay their fair share, in other words, the rich need to pay more in taxes. I have yet to understand the logic of telling the rich that they need to pay their fair share in taxes whenever if we just look at the numbers, seems to me that they are paying their fair share. If rich are picking up well over half of the tax income bill while the 50% of the US population is only paying 3% of the income tax bill, I fail to see how the rich aren’t paying their fair share.

Remember the 80/20 principle? 80% of the work is done by 20% of the people? Consider a situation where someone telling the 20% that they do their fair share of the work. Such a claim would be considered as sheer nonsense. I hold the claim that the rich need to pay their fair share in the same class of absurdity. Statistically, the rich are paying their fair share.

Is there some sort of ethical imperative that the Democrats are appealing too in order give their argument the weight it needs? Since I believe they can’t win with numbers, then I believe they’ll have to appeal to ethical arguments.

If I put my philosopher’s hat on, I smell an equivocation. It seems that in (R), our arguer is thinking that “should” is equivalent to “ought”, but really, “should” is not equivalent to “ought” in ethics. Consider the following assertions:

1. “You should tell the truth.”

2. “You ought to tell the truth.”

(2) introduces some sort of ethical imperative, while (1) does not. (2) is much stronger assertion than (1); this can be seen even at the intuitive level. So,

3. “The rich should pay more in taxes.”

4. “The rich ought to pay more in taxes.”

(3) and (4) clearly are not equivalent in an ethical context, but it seems to that (R) assumes that they are. So, our arguer is equivocating (3) and (4) in (R) and this clearly undermines its soundness.

As shown previously, “should” can’t mean “ought” since these aren’t equivocal. Could one appeal to some contextual definition, i.e., the meaning of “should” in the context of utterance means “ought”? Well, I can see this, but I’m not sold on it because, again, looking at (3) and (4), they’re not in same category, and I believe saying that they are same is a category mistake.

Is “can” equivalent to “should”? I’m dubious of this.

5. “The rich can pay more in taxes.”

6. “The rich should pay more in taxes.”

(6) is a stronger claim than (5), but still doesn’t get us to the ethical imperative of (2) or (4). While I’m not a fan of arguments that bicker over semantics, but there is the question of what “should” in (6) means. Clearly “can” doesn’t mean “should” in any context, at least there aren’t any contexts that I can think of. (For the philosophers, I’ve looked at possible-world and truth-theoretical semantics and can’t find any account that one could use to get “can” and “should” to mean the same.)

7. “You can drive the speed limit.”

8. “You should drive the speed limit.”

Clearly (7) and (8) are different sorts of assertions, just (5) and (6) are different sorts of assertions. “Can” does not imply “should,” and, therefore, (5) does not imply (6).

With this in mind, (R2) is based upon a false implication, and thus must be rejected.

Therefore, (R) is false in two ways. It assumes that the rich don’t pay their fair share, which is empirically false as IRS data shows, and (R2) must be rejected because it is based upon a false implication.

Posted by at 1 comment:

Friday, August 12, 2011

Herman Cain II

This is the result of much debate and discussion with a friend of mine and I think is probably my final response throughout this debate. Be that as it may, it's been very stimulating.

My friend said:

Concerning (a): In the original interview, Cain said that he would not allow a Muslim to be a cabinet member. In the subsequent clarification, he said that he said that because of the worry that a Muslim would endorse Sharia law. My point was that the worry is unfounded. In support of that point, note first that typically anyone being considered for service in the cabinet of the president is likely both a U.S. citizen and has a recorded that makes them an appropriate candidate for such service. Given this typicality, it would be odd if we would also need to ask of any proposed candidate whether they adhere to an extreme version of some religion. If Cain fails to recognize this, that’s just bizarre. However, if all he means is that no one who adheres to an extreme version of some religion can serve in his cabinet, that’s fine. However, it’s also uninteresting. Note second that the worry is unfounded due to the fact that very few Muslims endorse Sharia law—his worry rests on a misunderstanding of Islam and those who typically practice that religion. It seems that someone who misunderstands a major religion, someone who misunderstands the majority of those who practice that religion, and someone who will have to interact with in many different situations as president of a country is not someone who we should endorse for the presidency.

Well, back to (a), I don't see the problem with him clarifying his position. Politicians on both sides do this all the time. Nothing new really (especially in philosophy). You said, "However, if all he means is that no one who adheres to an extreme version of some religion can serve in his cabinet, that’s fine. However, it’s also uninteresting." If that's the case, then what's problem? Why throw a stink about what he said? If Obama had said, “I won’t have anyone in my cabinet who is a Christian fundamentalists,” would we even be having this debate? I hardly think so.

Furthermore, Sharia law is an issue, even if it's a minority view in Islam. The freedoms granted in the Constitution run contrary to Sharia law, and thus it's a problem. It's not an unfounded worry.

My friend went on to say:

Concerning (c), again the question is not about being able to express an attitude verbally. The question is whether a community has the right to mandate that a particular religious organization cannot build a building in a particular location simply because the community disagrees with the views that they hold. No one is questioning whether someone has the right to protest the building of it for whatever reason. Given that the Constitution upholds the right to practice whatever religion one wants, etc., it would be peculiar if the Constitution also upheld the right of communities to mandate that a particular religion cannot build buildings in their community citing the fact that this community doesn’t agree with the beliefs of that particular religion. Peculiar because the Constitution would both be in support of religious freedom and not in support of religious freedom. Having the Constitutional right to protest and having the Constitutional right to mandate a law that specifically targets a group for its affiliation with a particular religion are not the same thing. Importantly, one is directly in-line with the Constitution, while the other is not. When Cain supports the latter, he’s supporting a view that is clearly contrary to the Constitution. Thus, by his own lights he shouldn’t be allowed to work in the White House let alone be president of the U.S. Moreover, even if he fails to recognize this, surely we’re bright enough to see that these are good grounds not to endorse the man.

Concerning the Constitutionality of Mosques, I'm simply looking at the Constitution literally, and so I don’t see his statements as being blatantly unconstitutional. Just to point out, there have been instances where communities have denied Christians the right to build churches, and I hear no unconstitutional claims from the left.[1]

I personally think the whole reason why Cain’s claims are “controversial” is the fact that it has to deal with Islam. Had his statements pertained to Christianity I doubt they would have been labeled as controversial by the left.

Furthermore, if you want to get into defending the Constitution, Obama's own individual health care mandate has been found to be unconstitutional, in more than one state.[2] We can debate the merit on that later. If doing something unconstitutional or potentially unconstitutional disqualifies one president then Obama should be disqualified, as well as numerous presidents in the past, such as FDR whenever the Supreme Court ruled the New Deal was unconstitutional. Just pointing out facts in history. And let’s say that Cain’s decision is found to be unconstitutional. Ok, that’s why we have the system we have.

My friend said:

They are further worries. Would one have to be irrationally skeptical to deny climate change and/or the human influence of it? Is it troublesome that the U.S. health care system remains in the stone ages (which leads to unnecessary death and/or bankruptcy) with respect to health care while other nations like Japan, Germany, Taiwan, Switzerland, and Great Britain, all of whom basically have an open market (capitalist) economy provide health care for all of their citizens ensuring that folks have the opportunity to stave off unnecessary illnesses, improve their health, etc. and ensuring that no one goes bankrupt attempting to meet those basic needs? Should we take the steps to develop a universalized health care system in the US?

I believe this is a serious misunderstanding. The health care systems in European countries aren’t capitalistic based upon open markets, not in the least sense. They are self-avowed socialized medical systems based upon socialistic ideals, not capitalism.[3] If the health care system in the UK, for example, is so great and wonderful, then it is hard to see why residences of the UK are pulling their teeth because they can’t find dentists.[4] Additionally, Canada, which has a similar system to the UK, is looking to private sector solutions to their health care because their current health care system is bankrupting them and the care stinks.[5] Concerning compassion which I’ll get to in a moment, how is it compassionate for Obama to tell a woman that under ObamaCare her 92 year old grandma wouldn’t get a pace maker, she would just get a pill. How is it compassionate that in Canada if you need a CAT/CT scan for cancer, you’ll be put on a 6 to 8 month waiting list, whereas in the US you can get it in a week, as in the case of my aunt…?

My friend went on to say:

Is it bizarre that we still discriminate against individuals with a particular preference concerning with whom they want to have sexual relations? I can’t see how someone with the training and compassion you possess could answer any of those questions negatively. And, if you answer those questions affirmatively (as I assume you would given your background and compassionate point of view), I can’t see why you’d endorse Cain (who does answer each of those questions negatively), unless those issues are simply not deal breakers.

I’m not really understanding what is meant by “…I can’t see how someone with the training and compassion you possess could answer any of those questions negatively.” I’m assuming my friend is referring to my philosophy training. Well, if that’s the case, my philosophical training hasn’t changed my mind concerning my political views.

But I believe now we’re really getting to the heart of the matter. To me, and I could be wrong, my friend making the following argument:

“If x is compassionate, then x will support the liberal agenda.” Stated logically: (c → a)

Well, I believe this conditional is false because I believe its consequences to be false and in logic if the consequence is false, then the whole conditional is false. This conditional assumes that all and only liberals are compassionate. Just a single point, if that’s true, then why do Republicans and conservatives give more to charities?[6] Since compassionate people are more likely to give to charities, it follows that conservatives are compassionate. I don’t support the liberal agenda, but I do consider myself to be compassionate, but only to an extent.

Therefore, coming back to the point, I still support Herman Cain, and most likely the Republican candidate.


Posted by at 1 comment:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)