by Will Rice
We need the participation of people like you in the Coffee Party Commonwealth project if we’re going to effectively advocate for fair tax policies — one key way of restoring sanity to our nation’s public finances and revitalizing our economy by restoring purchasing power and upward mobility to America's middle class and working class.
Another goal of the Commonwealth project is to address some fundamental questions about money and life. For instance, how large of a role does luck, or fate, play in human affairs? This is an age-old philosophical question — one that affects policy positions on taxation, public spending and the proper role of government.
Say you believe life is a lottery: outcomes are entirely beyond our control, with bounty and want scattered at random. You might well support steeply progressive income and inheritance taxes as a result, based on the idea that the more fortunate should contribute a higher percentage of their earnings to the common good than the less fortunate, simply because they can.
But imagine that you believed success and failure are both entirely earned — that wealth is always and everywhere directly related to personal virtue and effort. Then the same policy is no more than institutionalized theft, punishing merit and rewarding sloth.
For some of us, the role of luck in financial wellbeing is beyond dispute, because we live by it. We are inheritors, who were handed a living through the simple expedient of being born. True, we are required to put forth some effort to fully enjoy our wealth. We must find ways not to excessively anger or alarm our benefactors, for instance, and we must spend our money wisely so as not to squander it. But these are relatively light duties in comparison to the workaday world.
I live by the assumption that this thing called luck works both ways: there must be at least as many instances of bad luck as good. I further believe it is the appropriate role of government to employ some of that unearned good fortune to address unearned misfortune through progressive taxation on things like capital gains and inheritance, using the money collected for social investment.
But that’s just my opinion. When I shared the first draft of this essay with Eric Byler, he emailed me the following:
I feel like the term "income inequality" implies that the motivation for reform comes only from a sense that things ought to be more equal — equal for equal's sake — which flies in the face of some prevalent American values, meritocracy, etc. You make a great point about unearned fortune and unearned misfortune, but I'm starting to feel like each time we frame the need for tax reform in the interest of fairness or compassion, we need to frame it two times in the interest of a strong national economy and a balanced budget. Tax policies that benefit only those with the power to dictate those policies tend to lead to the collapse of nations, and this benefits no one, not even the ruling class.
One of Eric's recent blog posts focuses on a fascinating interview with multi-millionaire venture capitalist Nick Hanauer, who said:
"I reject the idea that I am advocating higher taxes for myself and other wealthy people because I'm a good person or because I love you. Let me just be very clear: I do not love you. I value you as a potential customer, and we have rigged the economic system in a way to destroy my customer base."
And, as I explained to Eric, my perspective is obviously heavily colored by my own experience. But I have also been known to make Mr. Hanauer's argument, as I do in this clipping from a recent article by Sam Dangremond in Town & Country magazine seen here on the right.
But what do you think?
The Coffee Party Commonwealth project will begin on Sunday with a discussion about basic values such as fairness and the common good, and, about how we can work together to influence fiscal policy in ways that are consistent with those values.
Participation is open to everyone regardless of economic situation. Our goal is to lift the taboo on discussing personal finances in order to have a more authentic debate over taxes and spending — a debate that will always be with us, but that will be raging with particular intensity and consequence over the next year.
I’ll be hosting a 90 minute strategy call Sunday, December 18, at 5 p.m. Eastern (2 p.m. Pacific) to talk about how to better define the right issues, the right strategy, and even the right language for this broad-based campaign on tax and spending equity. You can register by clicking here.
I’d feel lucky if you joined me.
