Next Sunday, the Super Bowl between the Patriots and the Giants will be played for the second time in 4 years. I'm about as disinterested in this Super Bowl as I've been in any in a long time, because I don't have particularly strong feelings about either team. I like the Buccaneers, and they stunk. I dislike the Panthers, and they stunk, so that's fine. Cam Newton's smug smile will haunt my dreams.
Tom Brady, the quarterback for the New England Patriots, has won three Super Bowls, and Eli Manning, the quarterback for the New York Giants, has only won one Super Bowl. All the talk this week in the news about fairness has gotten me thinking that maybe, in the interest of fairness, they should adjust the rules in this game to accommodate Eli (since he's only won one championship) to correct Tom Brady's touchdown throws and make them worth one third of Eli's (since he's won three Super Bowls and, objectively, is three times the quarterback that Eli is) and only be two points a piece. (Note: The NFL touchdown is worth 6 points.) That would be fair, right?
What is fair? Fairness is, to paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Potter, "Hard to define but easy to identify." (Note: Potter was talking about pornography. Isn't that weird?) Equal chance of outcome? Well, I personally think the Patriots are a much better team than the Giants, so making an adjustment like I described would make the game "fairer" in that sense. However, I also thought that the Packers were a better team that the Giants, and look where that got us now.
The thing about football, much like the tax code that the president is arguing about making fairer, is entirely arbitrary. It's a set of rules agreed upon before "play". If the NFL decided that next season every team's running back must wear a tiara or be disqualified from play, they could do that. There is no universal standard by which football must be played. The rules of the college game are different than the professional one. Taxes can similarly change from year to year, and there is no definitive truth as to what the best tax plan is, or what an individual's fair share is. How much is your fair share? How much is mine?
Changing rules like this really serve to change incentives. In the Super Bowl, if Tom Brady's touchdowns were in fact worth less, then the Patriots would run more inside the red zone, because that would maximize their scoring potential. But, it wouldn't necessarily take away Tom Brady's advantage anywhere else besides the end zone. Likewise, if the tax regimes were different, people would spend their money differently to maximize their return. It seems exaggerated for rich people because they have more disposable income than the rest of us do, and are better able to take advantage.
Think of it like this: Dr. Sighted loves beef jerky. If beef jerky costs 3.99 at Publix, but 4.59 at Bi-Lo, I would buy beef jerky from Bi-Lo. Now, what if Publix were 30 miles away? How much beef jerky would Dr. Sighted have to eat for making that trip to be worth it? There comes a point where the economics for rich people are really different. It may seem unfair, but possession is 9/10ths of the law. (In the interest of full disclosure: I don't really understand that phrase.)
If I have a lot of money and investing yields the best return, that's where I'm spending it. Simple as that. Is it unfair that the tax rate is unequal? Maybe. But, remember, our tax code is progressive, so it's more exacting on higher incomes. However, people with more income (and thus more to lose) have more incentive to find ways not to pay it -- so with a code like ours, rife with loopholes, people with means are able to find them. But, honestly, if you had the resources to find ways to pay less, you'd do it. I think it's very easy to make an argument that it's not fair that rich people pay more simply because they can. Elton John can sing really well, why shouldn't he sing at my wedding as well as Rush Limbaugh's?
Fairness is ultimately arbitrary, unless you cite a standard. (Really, everything is arbitrary without a standard.) So why do we think that the rich should pay more, other than we think they don't really deserve what they have? Or they don't need what they have? What standard are we using? And at what point to you become rich?
1 comment:
I couldn't help but think of a "fair playing field" as you made your analogy between football and our tax system! Many Americans want a fair - or even - playing field. They want the same right as everyone, and want to pay the same tax percentage as everyone. They want it to be where nobody gets favored, and nobody gets left out.
Where football and taxes differ is that in football the viewers who watch want to see the highly paid athletes perform at a high standard, expecting that with money comes exceptional play. In life, those highly salaried Americans who pay taxes often pay a less percentage and the viewers don't see any benefit from them.
Flip a coin! Do we tax the rich more and take their earned money, or do we let them hold on to it (thanks to loopholes, etc.) and hope they put it into the economy on their own?
BTW, goooooo Giants! I like Eli and I think winning a 2nd Super Bowl ring is better than a 4th. ( :
Post a Comment