The Merits of Tax Reform

“Unless you can provide everything you need or utilize through your own physical effort and not by sheer virtue of wealth, then taxes are necessary in order that schools, fire departments, roads and sewerage systems can exist.  Everyone must contribute, but having more is not reason enough to demand more.  What you have done, on the other hand, should have a lot more to do with what is considered your fair share.” 

T. Quidd, p. 875, Just One Small Reason The Government Sucks; 1995.  Murphy’s Pub and Publishing House, back on the dirt roads of Riner, Virginia.

               The glaring problem that I see with our tax structure is that it’s primarily based on income rather than merit.  WTSHITAA!  -  What The Sam Hill Is That All About?  Our present tax structure, if you think about it, was originally conceived, and later inverted, on ideas something like the communist ideal of “from each according to his ability; to each according to his need.”  That would be just fine if we were an ideal people with real values like those we profess to have, such as honesty, charity, compassion, selflessness and integrity.  But that ain’t who we are if you may have noticed.  And we’ve turned that lovely idealism into “to each according to his ability to take it; from each according to his ability to prevent it from being taken.”

               So why not reform our tax system and a little of our societal self-respect at the same time by considering setting up our tax system with some consideration for merit.  Merit, that is, which is based on explicit national and social service.  To begin with, the most significant tax breaks should be given to those who have demonstrated a willingness to give the most for the good of the nation:  our veterans of military service.  These are the people who have taken an oath to do whatever the government of the nation asks of them; and this asking may include loss of life in a cause that may or may not be justified against the people of another nation that may or may not really be an enemy.  Since these people might be killed, captured, tortured or permanently damaged in a service benefiting both the rich and the poor of the country, the veterans should receive the first and the greatest of tax credits.  Behind them are our police, nurses, doctors, firemen and teachers.  Some are better paid than others, but these careers are certainly of greater service to the nation than that of the advertising salesman or stock trader whose objective is primarily one of personal profit. True service to the greater good of the people, and it is the people who constitute a nation, deserves greater consideration.

               Of course there will be an argument that all jobs benefit the nation.  Maybe they do, and to various degrees, but not in the same way as the real or potential sacrifice willingly accepted by the veteran.  Advertising might make us aware of products or services that could make life easier or in some way better or even just more fun; but the whole reason we are being made aware of these products and services is to financially enhance their providers.  If the message is “pick me” or “buy mine,” the motivation is far more about personal gain than it is about universal benefit or benevolence.

               The message and the motivation bring up another argument that is certain to follow a tax structure based on merit: the so called public servants of government.  They’ve gotten used to thinking they’re really servants of the people.  I think it’s time we admit we know better and do something about it.  If you’re a public servant in the sense of making a career of being a secretary in the Pentagon or a forest or park ranger your tax merit should be less than the veteran; but if you spend your money and other people’s money to get elected to public office, then there are legitimate questions concerning the sincerity of public service versus greediness for personal gain.  None of the elected office holders I know of were drafted; they all ran, seeking the job and coveting victory.  Therefore, they should not be considered for a merit based tax consideration.  Compare the work your congressman does to the work your doctors, nurses and teachers and policemen do and see who you think deserves the greater tax break based on merit.  I’m sure Nancy Pelosi, Morgan Griffith and former congressman Anthony Weiner would disagree; but screw them anyway.  I don’t believe any of them were veterans and I don’t believe their motivation has had one damn thing to do with genuine public service.  Do you?

               No such thing as merit considerations will ever be considered in our system of taxation however.  Too many of the most deserving happen to be women, black, Latino or members of other minorities while so much of the money that rules the government, and will now be increasing its formidable influence, comes from fat white men who never served the country in any way.  Of course, there must be discussion and agreement on such technical matters as how many years it takes to constitute a career, Physical and mental handicaps, and the merit ranking of sundry careers.  But, why don’t we give greatest consideration to those who have done the most to deserve it.  We like to say we’re a fair society.  So what’s wrong with that?  Actually, I bet I can answer that.