A One-Word Question at the Heart of the Debate | Eastern North Carolina Now

   Publisher's note: The author of this fine report is Mitch Kokai, who an associate editor of the Carolina Journal, John Hood Publisher.

    RALEIGH     If you can get beyond the horribly dated technology and the occasional lapse into hippie-inspired silliness, the classic late-1960s libertarian-themed television show "The Prisoner" still raises significant questions worth answering. The search for answers can lead to a better understanding of the relationship between the individual and the government that conspires to limit his freedom.

    One example that leaps immediately to mind is an episode titled "The General." Late in the program, Patrick McGoohan -- the Prisoner -- learns that an evil mastermind has been testing a form of television-induced mass hypnosis as a tool for brainwashing entire societies.

    It's hard to watch the goofy visuals in the brainwashing sequences without laughing. Even sillier is the climactic moment, in which McGoohan learns that the mastermind is actually a wall-sized mainframe computer with lots of blinking buttons and spinning tape reels. Interaction with the dastardly genius involves a manual typewriter and metallic punch cards. (Oddly enough, no slide rules are involved.)

    But while the technological flourishes seem ancient in this Internet age, McGoohan's approach toward the task of defeating the computerized General still seems relevant. Told that the computer can answer any question, McGoohan proves otherwise. He asks it a question "insoluble by man or machine."

    The question: Why? Faced with that one-word query, the machine breaks down, killing its creator in the process.

    Any parent of young children knows the difficulty of addressing questions that start with "why." Why is the sky blue? Why do I have to eat these vegetables? Why should I stop poking my sister? At some point, a constant barrage of why-themed questions might lead to the discussion-ending retort: "Because I said so!"

    That response might be appropriate for dealing with an overly inquisitive child, but it doesn't answer the question. It's a dodge -- one that pundits and policymakers ought to avoid when the questions involve matters of public interest that affect our liberty and wallets.

    One question in particular comes to mind when discussion turns to topics such as top marginal tax rates, the Buffett Rule, and the Laffer Curve. Before setting out to debate good versus bad taxes, the most economically efficient or fairest tax, or the taxes that are most likely to maximize government revenue or personal freedom, it might be a good idea to step back and ask: Why do we tax?

    How one answers that question has a major impact on how he approaches the rest of the tax debate. If your answer differs drastically from that of a debate opponent, it's much less likely that you will reach an easy agreement on the best tax policy to follow.

    Excepting anarchists and the purest of libertarians, most people accept the need for taxation. A government needs to collect enough revenue to carry out its proper functions. If it's not possible for that government to rely solely on some sort of user fee, then taxes must fill the gap.

    Approach the tax debate with that mind-set, and you're likely to favor a system of broad-based taxes that affect people who benefit from the taxes on as equal a basis as possible. The "head tax," which charges the same dollar amount to every taxpayer, offers the most equality, though few people advocate for that option.

    Those who favor broad-based taxes are much more likely to tout flat-rate taxes with as few exemptions, giveaways, and targeted breaks as possible. These taxes raise the money government needs to do its job, while distorting people's free choices as little as possible.

    There's still plenty of room within that camp to debate government's proper functions, and the amount of money taxpayers should spend on any particular item. But the boundaries of the debate are relatively clear: Taxes should be no higher than necessary to pay for government to perform its designated role. Those urging higher tax rates must make a cogent argument that government needs more money to accomplish its accepted tasks.

    Others who reject taxes based on flat rates and broad bases are more likely to offer a different answer to the question of why we tax. Perhaps they view taxation as a tool for "leveling the playing field," "spreading the wealth," or punishing "the rich." For these folks, a properly designed tax system bears less of a relationship to the goal of raising just enough money for government to do its job.

    The amount of money raised is a secondary consideration. In fact, arguing that a lower tax rate with fewer loopholes might yield more money for the government programs they support might go nowhere.

    Instead, this group believes progressively higher taxes for those with higher incomes are desirable because of considerations of fairness or social justice. The tax code ought to favor the little guy over the big corporation or the "millionaires and billionaires." The practical implication for a well-designed tax system is that those with more ought to pay more -- regardless of what they're paying now.

    Is it impossible for a fan of limited government to reach an agreement on taxation with a spread-the-wealth advocate? Perhaps not, but both sides should be forced to confront the differences of their basic assumptions about the role of taxation.

    When confronted with the suggestion that the American tax code needs higher marginal rates for high-income earners or corporations, a data-based rebuttal might not offer the best response. It might make more sense to respond with that most essential question: Why?