Council for Secular Humanism

Editorial
Paul Kurtz

The Principles of Fairness: Progressive Taxation

Paul Kurtz is Editor in Chief of Free Inquiry, a professor emeritus of philosophy at the University at Buffalo, and Chairman of the Center for Inquiry/Transnational.

We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that we are capable of as human beings.

-The Affirmations of Humanism: A Statement of Principles

Secular humanism traces its origins back to the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and the democratic revolutions of the modern world. As such, secular humanists have espoused a distinctive set of ethical values and principles, seeking to secularize human values and to emancipate individuals from repressive ideologies and theologies. The word secular qualifies humanism, because we are skeptical of traditional faith in God and salvation and are nonreligious. But we cannot be defined simply by our unbelief. We accept a naturalistic, evolutionary worldview, for it is based upon evidence and has been tested by the methods of science. The term humanist ethics helps to define who and what we are. Clearly, we believe in "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." In ethical terms, this means the right of individuals to realize their own interests and aspirations on their own terms, so long as they do not harm others or prevent those people from pursuing their interests and aspirations. It is hoped that this will mean the achievement of some measure of excellence in their personal lives. Humanist ethics commits us to beliefs in the autonomy of choice and the right of privacy, consonant with the constraints of the public order and the duly enacted laws. We are committed to the civic virtues of democracy. This entails tolerance for diversity in personal tastes, beliefs, and lifestyles.

Secular humanists are also concerned with maximizing the common good for the widest number of individuals within a democratic framework. I am not here defending a utilitarian ethical theory in the sense that the common good is the ultimate criterion of moral choice. I think that there are many principles and values that we consider in making choices, but the common good is surely a vital element.

I submit that there is a key principle of fairness related to the common good that is being eroded and that needs to be defended anew. I am here referring to progressive taxation, which I would justify on humanist ethical grounds.

I have long argued that the secular humanist movement should not take political positions per se. As individuals, we can disagree about candidates and party platforms. However, certain ethical principles are central to secular humanism; and, if humanists do not take some concrete actions, then we risk the danger of engaging in purely abstract prattle, with no practical consequences.

I am sure that our libertarian readers will kick up a storm of protest against my support of progressive taxation. This issue is not simply economic or political; it is primarily ethical. It is based on the principle that all individuals in a democratic society ought to be considered equal in dignity and value and, hence, entitled to equality of consideration. Every child is included, no matter what his or her racial, ethnic, religious, or class background; the son or daughter of the poor person as well as that of the rich; the disadvantaged as well as the advantaged. The democratic ethic holds that every individual should have an opportunity to realize his or her potentialities in society-the best and noblest of which each is capable. This presupposes an open society that affords some recognition and reward for merit. Every child is entitled to have access to education, proper nutrition, and good health care, even if his or her parents lack an adequate income.

A system of progressive taxation has now been instituted in virtually every democratic country of the world. Democratically elected governments have the right to exact taxation, and the tax rates ought to be graduated; that is, the wealthy classes ought to be taxed proportionally more than the working classes. These tax revenues should be applied for the common good, providing a level playing field for all sectors of society. Unfortunately, the concept of progressive taxation is progressively being whittled away, especially where extreme laissez-faire attitudes dominate.

A disturbing development is that in the United States an increasingly polarized society is taking form, with wide disparities in income and wealth among residents and a concomitant reduction in the capacity of the middle class to maintain its standard of living.

The income tax was enacted in the early part of the twentieth century. Rates at first were low, but they were gradually increased so that, by the time of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and during the Eisenhower years, the top rates reached 91 percent, clearly confiscatory.

The reverse situation now seems to prevail. The trend today is to reduce taxes for the wealthy. Thus, income earned from dividends and capital gains are taxed at only 15 percent (no doubt to bolster the stock markets), whereas income earned from a job or profession is taxed at higher rates, depending on income. There is also a concerted effort to get rid of estate taxes-misnamed "death taxes"-and either reduce the rates significantly or entirely repeal them.

Conservatives argue that reduced taxes stimulate the growth of the gross national product and thereby increase general prosperity. There is another index that ought to be applied in judging the viability of an economic-political system, and that is the quality of life of the society and how widely it is shared. The principle of fairness states that, in an affluent society, no citizen should have his or her basic economic, health, and cultural needs denied; there ought to be a floor in the income available for everybody in society. This is particularly the case in a situation where huge fortunes are being amassed.

The current effort to repeal the estate tax is puzzling. It is said that to tax an estate is to tax income twice. But this argument makes little sense, particularly since dividends and capital gains, which contribute significantly to wealth, have lower tax rates. Given compounded interest rates, the growth of huge fortunes is accelerating. If this process continues, we are likely to see the emergence of an entrenched plutocracy, which is bound to have a deleterious effect on the common good by corrupting the electoral process and the political system. Special-interest lobbying could distort the legislative agenda and exacerbate gross inequalities in income and wealth.

The conservative complains about the abuses of the system, especially "welfare cheats," because the benefits that are delivered to such people are unearned. But, we may ask, in what sense is the income and wealth of the heirs of vast family estates earned by them, when they may not have been involved in the building of the fortune? Why should earned income-from a job or profession-be taxed at a higher rate than unearned income in the form of dividends, capital gains, or reduced estate taxes? Where is the fairness in such a system of taxation?

Many huge fortunes may have been amassed due to luck or chance and not the innovation of the individuals who acquired them. Winners of lotteries and speculators in stocks and real estate may not necessarily possess the special acumen of entrepreneurs. I grant that some individuals do contribute extraordinarily to social wealth and that incentives are a powerful stimulus to their efforts. They should be rewarded. But not everyone who strikes it rich earned his or her bonanza by contributing to the wealth of society.

A system of progressive taxation allows for modestly graduated higher rates that are not confiscatory. As a matter of fact, a compromise bill before the congress exempted estates up to $4 million from taxation. Progressive taxation provides some redress of inequities in society while allowing a substantial portion of the value of estates to be passed on. We must not allow greed to outweigh all other considerations. Should it not be balanced with the principles of equity?

Those who would deny any principles of fairness believe that evangelical capitalism is the savior of society, almost "the hand of God," rewarding the devout and virtuous. Granted that the role of free-market incentives is essential for expanding the economy, but the private sector may not be able to satisfy all of the needs of society. Although philanthropy sometimes helps to fill the gaps, it may not be enough. Hence, there ought to be room for public support when the private sector is unable to fulfill vital social needs.

A functioning democratic society is one in which citizens in all sectors can enjoy the fruits of their labor. This is the basic principle of progressive taxation. Unfortunately, America has been overwhelmed by the mantra that the enemy is always the government or the state. Any effort to assist the disadvantaged is opposed. Thus, there is great reluctance to increase the minimum wage, even though its real value has declined 20 percent in the last decade. Forty-four million Americans still do not have health insurance. At the same time, great fortunes have grown exponentially.

Added to this is the misery caused when an industry outsources jobs, decides to leave an area, or insists that wages and benefits be drastically cut (as at Delphi and General Motors). The first casualties are working- and middle-class Americans, not top executives. Before this recourse is taken, in my view, there ought to be a limit on golden parachutes and a cap on the salaries of corporate leaders, particularly when the survival of an industry is endangered. Moreover, there need to be massive private and public efforts to retrain workers for new jobs.

Progressive taxation is a principle that we can defend on rational humanist ethical grounds and in terms of fairness. It is essential to maintain it if our democratic institutions are to survive and flourish.

Second Latin-American Congress Held in Peru

I recently returned from Lima, Peru, where the Center for Inquiry/Transnational cosponsored the Second Ibero-American Congress. The first was held last year in Argentina. Norm Allen, co-director of Transnational Programs, and other members of the staff accompanied me to the congress, which was held at San Marcos University, an institution that was founded in 1512 and is considered to be the oldest university in the Western Hemisphere.

I am sure that readers of this magazine are well aware how the Spanish conquistadors, led by Francisco Pizarro, in search of gold, brutally vanquished the great Inca civilization that they found. A repressive Roman Catholic Church has reigned since in Peru and other South American societies, though many countries were liberated from the Spanish yoke in the nineteenth century by such men as San Martin and Sim�n Bol�var.

I am pleased to say that there are now two South American Centers for Inquiry-in Buenos Aires and Lima; and there are great plans for future development. The Center for Inquiry in Amherst publishes the Spanish-language magazine, Pensar (To Think), which is distributed throughout the Spanish-speaking world. Editors from some twelve countries make up its editorial board. The leaders of the congress declared their support for our endeavors and have issued a declaration defending secularism and science and calling for the development of additional Centers and Communities throughout Latin America.

E-mail this article to a friend

REGISTER TODAY!

AUG 11: TOM FLYNN SPEAKS IN PHILADELPHIA

Our Current Issue