James and J.P.,
I am surprised I haven't gotten MORE blowback on the executive
compensation part of my otherwise pure free-market package. I wrote
it with the full intention of causing a few vapors. Time and space
do not permit a full debate on this right now (I actually think
this is a subject the right SHOULD debate, in public -- and it was
the one issue on which I was careful NOT to over-criticize Mike
Huckabee), but I do think a few points must be emphasized. First of
all, I do NOT think that corporate boards are adequate
representatives of shareholders or of workers; and I think that,
both morally and politically, huge executive compensation packages
are despicable. I wish that social ostracism were a more effective
tool to punish outrageous and socially harmful pursuits of
Mammon.
But I do hesitate to have government try to decide what does and
doesn't amount to "excessive" compensation or wealth. And I do not
think it is government's job to punish ANYbody for accepting
compensation that he can convince the market to bear for his
services.
But I DO think the government has a right to nudge corporations
-- which, after all, are NOT individuals, but purely legal
constructs -- to consider, just consider, the implications of its
compensation schemes, ESPECIALLY when the government is NOT
otherwise taxing the corporation's net income by a single penny.
You will note that I ask for only the COMPANY'S share of the FICA
tax to go into the fictional "transition cost" part of the
fictional Social Security pot. And you will note that it only is
being asked for that exceedingly small extra donation to Social
Security in return for a complete elimination of corporate income
taxes. It's not an added tax; in effect, it is an incredibly small
diminution of what would remain a massive tax cut.
The political calculations are multiple here. First, the
executive compensation proviso would add a bit of a populist tinge
to the plan to eliminate corporate income taxes. It's a small price
to pay for adding a populist political incentive to support the
corporate income tax elimination. Second, it goes a long way toward
helping get rid of the crazy "transition cost" argument against
personal accounts in Social Security. Okay,
Lefty, you want to cover the transition costs? I'll COVER the damn
transition costs! NOW can we let people save and invest some of
their own bleeping retirement money?!? Third, it appeals to
most people's notions of fairness. One big argument against
eliminating corporate income taxes is that corporate boards will
merely dump all the newly kept profits into the hands of the
already-filthy-rich execs. This proviso tells voters that we are
doing something "good" with at least some of that money -- that
taxpayers, too, will get a windfall.
We do, after all, live in a political world, which sometimes means
playing to the crowd (as long as we are not compromising
fundamental principle, which I am not).
James' "slippery slope" argument is not at all unreasonable,
however. Still, it would be a debate I would welcome. Every time
the Left tries to argue that professional households ought to pay
more into Social Security without any concomitant benefit
increases, and then starts citing numbers, we win. So many families
in the high-cost-of-living coastal zones make up to $200,000 or so
without living extravagantly that we conservatives win every time
government talks about confiscating more of their money. I would be
perfectly happy to let the Democrats try to argue the "details" of
their tax hikes on families that do not think of themselves as
"rich." Bring it on!
There is a lot more to say on the overall topic, but just let me
reiterate for now that I am, as always, trying to think like a
practical pol -- which, in one sense, is what I did for a living
for a long time. As long as what I am proposing is clearly a tax
cut overall, not a hike, then I see no problem with tweaking the
cut a little bit to achieve other political ends. All y'all's
arguments to the contrary are perfectly legitimate, but I think
they amount to niggling over 2% contradictions of philosophical
purity rather than embracing the vast benefits, both
philosophically and practical, that the 2% is designed to help
achieve.
topics:
Taxes, Social Security
