Interesting take.Words do mean something and when you say Romney is “gaming” the system, that seems to indicate a personal bias, unless you believe that anyone taking advantage of the tax code is also “gaming” the system. Most would say, I believe, that using the tax code to your advantage is being smart. (I know that if I can find a legal advantage on my taxes, I don’t prejudge it as “gaming”)
On the surface, your “fairness” argument is also interesting. Fairness is certainly a nebulous enough word that it can be applied in multiple instances in either a favorable or unfavorable light. (some would argue strenuously that it is a fairness issue when some choose to work while others “game” the system). One’s position on fairness will vary greatly based on one’s current circumstances.
It is very gracious of you to accept Geitner’s explanation of his tax “problem” on the face of his own explanation. I wonder if you would extend such courtesy to Romney and others based solely on their explanations?
Finally, I emphatically agree with your concern about those incurring debt while entering the medical profession. (although, a bit ironic since data seems to indicate Obamacare will drive many out of the profession). Regardless, as soon as Doctors become fully engaged in the system and start pulling in healthy salaries, they will immediately be transformed into the evil “rich” who are not paying their “fair” share.
That's the inherent flaw in any "fairness" argument.
We could go back and forth for pages without either of us giving an inch, so I have a more basic question.
Is it more wrong person A who is able to work to take $25,000 in welfare / unemployment benefits, or for person B to avoid paying $25,000 in taxes by using a offshore shelter? Or, if neither action is illegal, is neither wrong? Or are they both wrong and equally wrong?
In my view both actions are wrong and equally wrong, because the government is deprived of $25,000 to do something that can benefit everyone, lower the deficit, or lower everyone's tax burden. I can see the obvious argument that the $25,000 belongs person B, and the $25,000 in social services does not belong person A. However, there is also an argument that the $25,000 does not belong to person B, because we have all agreed, by virtue of existing in this country to the system of taxation. That of course can be modified with legislation, but in lieu of modification, I do absolutely believe it is morally wrong for people to use complicated tax shelters that are not available to everyone.
The "you would do it too argument" is an extremely weak defense, and one that should greatly irritate people who are paying a lot of taxes. Namely the upper middle class and modestly wealthy that used to be solidly Republican. Again, I suspect that is the main reason Romney will not release his returns, because the pats on the back for doing so well at tax avoidance would be few and far between from his own party.
)
