"Fairness"

Yesterday's column by Charles Krauthammer regarding the return of the "real" Obama was extraordinary.  He reminded readers that Obama (during 2008) said that even if the evidence shows that reductions in the tax rate applicable to capital gains increase revenue, he would consider increasing them in the interest of "fairness."  Thus, in order to achieve what he regards to be "fair," Obama would propose legislation (increases in the tax rates for capiital gains) that would have the impact of reducing tax revenue.  The same theme seems foundational to Obama's current thinking regarding the "Buffet" rule, and much of what Krugman and others have said about the growing chasm between the incomes and net worth of the wealthliest Americans, on the one hand, and those of middle class, on the other.

This has caused me to focus on what do Obama and others mean when they speak of "fairness" in the context of income, wealth and taxes.  In this regard, I never hear liberals assail the earnings of the stars of Hollywood, recording, and professional sports, even though ratios between earnings those "stars," and the various people delivering services to them (e.g., the folks that wash the basketball uniforms) are no doubt staggering.

When I read the posts of the folks that have heartily endorsed the Buffet rule, I wonder whether they would find more acceptable a world in which everyone now earning between $30,000 and $80,000 suddenly earned 20% less, provided that everyone earning above $250,000 (excluding sports and entertainment stars) suddenly earned less than $100,000.

It is ironic indeed that persons (sports stars excluded) that have jobs that put them in a position to earn $10,000,000 or more per year do so without the benefit of collective bargaining (frankly, the absolute best among the sports superstars wwould earn even more in the absence of their unions).  I.e., whether we are talking Beyonce or a Wall Street genius, each negotiates for the best possible deal with no union to help them, and, if they fail to perform, there are thousands waiting in the wings to replace them.  Yet when the Wall Street geniuses end up earning a substantial multiple of the earnings of union members (imagine the operators of the trains on which the Wall Street geniuses ride to work) that can bargain collectively for the  best possible wages, we are told it is "unfair."

I suppose my point is this: Obama and Krugman care not about the fairness of the process that produces the results that we see; they care instead about outcomes.  But, so long as people are born with different levels of gifts (musical ability, running speed, IQ, etc), nothing can produce equality of outcomes.

Father