Join us.

We’re working to create a just society and preserve a healthy environment for future generations. Donate today to help.

Donate

Weaponizing Wealth: Unjust Redistribution Upward

Is the current "tax reform" going through Congress just? Justice is important because even if citizens are treated dissimilarly by institutions, if the differences are just, all have reasonable treatment and the institutions are likely to be socially accepted. 

A widely endorsed theory of justice, developed by the philosopher John Rawls nearly 50 years ago, captures how thoroughly unjust the congressional tax plan is. Understanding this and how it weaponizes wealth against most ordinary citizens may explain why so many people oppose it. 

The tax plan will initially reduce taxes on all income groups, with those in the top five percent receiving a higher share of tax reductions. Yet by 2027, 50 percent of middle- and lower-income groups are projected to pay more in taxes than they do now. Will the initial, temporary drop in taxes be enough to persuade those groups to look favorably on the bill, even though their taxes will increase later and they will be harmed in various ways? 

Three major components provide resources to assess the justice of basic institutions. One, largely the legal system, should ensure certain equal rights for all citizens. A second, with implications for health care and education, should ensure fair opportunities for all in the community based on similar talents, abilities, and motivations. The third – and this is where economics and governmental tax policies come into play – should ensure differences in income and wealth don't grow so large that the best-off could use their economic advantages to harm citizens who are less well-off. 

The current tax proposals violate aspects of all three principles. 

Under the first principle, all citizens should be equally protected from various harms. The tax proposals will likely harm ordinary citizens in several ways. 

The bill's elimination of the "individual mandate," the requirement that all citizens have health insurance, will result in some 13 million people losing their access to health care, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates. It'll also drive up the cost of insurance for everybody else. Likewise, the tax bill will greatly increase the national debt, a fact that Republican leaders plan to use as leverage to make cuts to Medicare and Social Security, further endangering those who use such programs. Preventive medicine will likely diminish, leaving potential diseases undetected and treatments precluded for many. 

Good health care and health protections support equality of opportunity. Loss of health care – resulting in more diseases – reduces opportunity. Additionally, drastic cuts in federal programs that protect the public from toxic substances are likely to increase diseases of environmental origin. 

Education is also fundamental to equality of opportunity. Each person should have the same opportunities to achieve professional, educational, and lifelong goals consistent with their talents, abilities, and motivations, whether they come from wealthy suburbs with well-financed schools, or rural communities or big cities where resources are strained. 

To date, this goal has not been attained because funding and education are substantially different in poor versus richer communities. Children from lower economic groups are unlikely to achieve one of the core elements of the American dream: having a higher standard of living than their parents. Proposed tax changes heighten the barriers. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the proposed law, by decreasing deductions for state and local taxes, will reduce revenues for education and other state activities. This is a deliberate, long-sought conservative goal: to starve state budgets, a move that undermines opportunity for millions of Americans. 

A reasonable theory of justice recognizes the importance of financial incentives to elicit productive efforts from talented and motivated entrepreneurs. However, market rewards can become so excessive that the rich use their wealth to dominate political affairs, reducing life prospects for those who are less well-off. This too is unjust

In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court implicitly weaponized wealth with Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Extreme wealth differentials for the rich, who have much different political priorities than ordinary citizens, distort democratic institutions. Republicans freely admit their donors' pressures: pass the tax bill or lose our support. Will the 1 percent heap further rewards on congressional benefactors with their extra bounty? 

Conservatives have famously opposed the "redistribution" of income and wealth. But it turns out their objection isn't to redistribution, it's to the direction. This bill redistributes upward! The tax bill itself is a weapon against opponents. It also worsens existing income and wealth discrepancies, blessing the most fortunate and enriching their children (by greatly reducing inheritance taxes) while decreasing incomes of the poor and middle classes, raising their future taxes, and fostering harm. By enriching corporations, their shareholders, their CEOs and managers, and the upper 1 percent, tax "reform" increases wealth that can be used as a weapon against ordinary citizens. And "under the radar tax increases on individuals" pay for permanent tax reductions for corporations. We should be outraged by these many injustices.

Showing 2,817 results

Carl Cranor | December 18, 2017

Weaponizing Wealth: Unjust Redistribution Upward

Is the current “tax reform” going through Congress just? Justice is important because even if citizens are treated dissimilarly by institutions, if the differences are just, all have reasonable treatment and the institutions are likely to be socially accepted.  A widely endorsed theory of justice, developed by the philosopher John Rawls nearly 50 years ago, […]

Evan Isaacson | December 18, 2017

New Report: Three Fundamental Flaws in Maryland’s Water Pollution Trading Regulations

On December 8, the Maryland Department of the Environment published its long-awaited nutrient trading regulations, capping more than two years of effort to develop a comprehensive environmental market intended to reduce the amount of nutrient and sediment pollution in the Chesapeake Bay.  A trading market would allow people, companies, and governments required by law to […]

James Goodwin | December 15, 2017

Trump Speech on Deregulation, Fall Unified Agenda Continue Dangerous Assault on Our Safeguards

This post was originally released as a press statement on December 14 in response to President Donald Trump’s speech on deregulation and his administration’s Fall 2017 Unified Agenda. Starting on Day One, the Trump administration has perpetrated an all-out assault on essential public safeguards for health, safety, the environment, and American families’ financial security, and […]

Rena Steinzor | December 14, 2017

Bay Journal Op-Ed: Bay Jurisdictions’ No-action Climate Policy Puts Restoration in Peril

This op-ed originally ran in the Bay Journal. Reprinted with permission. Despite research demonstrating that climate change is adding millions of pounds of nutrient pollution to the Chesapeake Bay, Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan and his Bay states colleagues appear to be taking a page from the Trump playbook: Ignore this inconvenient truth. Doubts about whether climate […]

Dan Rohlf | December 12, 2017

Reno Gazette-Journal Op-Ed: Don’t Toss Out Cooperation in the West’s Sage Country

This op-ed originally ran in the Reno Gazette-Journal. During the holiday season, many people put significant effort into plans for getting along with one another at family gatherings. Seating plans are carefully strategized and touchy subjects avoided. We’ve learned that enjoying our shared holiday demands that we all compromise a little. Plans for cooperation in […]

Daniel Farber | December 11, 2017

Looking Back on Lucas

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Commission was the high-water mark of the Supreme Court’s expansion of the takings clause, which makes it unconstitutional for the government to take private property without compensation. Lucas epitomized the late Justice Scalia’s crusade to limit government regulation of property. The decision left environmentalists and regulators quaking in their boots, […]

| November 29, 2017

Clean Water Laws Need to Catch Up with Science

The field of environmental law often involves tangential explorations of scientific concepts. Lately, one scientific term – hydrologic connectivity – seems to keep finding its way into much of my work. As for many others, this principle of hydrology became familiar to me thanks to its place at the center of one of the biggest […]

Matthew Freeman | November 28, 2017

An Antidote to Greed

If there’s a defining value to the tax bill now working its way through Congress, it’s greed. How else to account for a bill that wipes out tax deductions for health care expenses, double-taxes the money you pay in state and local income taxes, eliminates the deduction for interest on student loans, and at the […]

Nina Mendelson | November 28, 2017

More Thoughts on the CFPB Puzzle: President Trump Can Select Someone to Run the CFPB Only if the Senate Has an Opportunity to Confirm

Originally posted at Notice & Comment, a blog of the Yale Journal on Regulation and the American Bar Association Section of Administrative Law & Regulatory Practice. Reprinted with permission. On Friday, November 24, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director Richard Cordray named Leandra English, the longtime CFPB Chief of Staff, to the post of Deputy Director. Based […]