Banishing Fair Share

A committee at Lake Superior State University (LSSU) publishes an annual list of words banished because of misuse, overuse, and general uselessness. Entries for 2010 include “shovel-ready,” “tweet,” and “teachable moment.” Until now I haven’t felt the need to submit an entry for their consideration. They get thousands of nominations each year. But when I browsed their web site last weekend, I noticed that “fair share” has never been officially sanctioned even though the committee has been performing their invaluable service since 1975.

Fair share has a certain populist appeal. That’s why it appears often in discussions about taxes. In a typical usage a politician will opine that rich people need to “pay their fair share” or “aren’t paying their fair share.” And who can oppose making the system fairer for all? The problem comes when the speaker is asked to define what “fair share” means. Or to explain why it is “fair” that two families, one rich and one not, pay different amounts as citizens under the same government. Of course, any seasoned politician adroitly dodges the question.

Let’s expand the question of what politicians mean by achieving “fair share.” Are they talking about a lump-sum surcharge or increasing the percentage at which high income is taxed or just the notion that the wealthy should pay more because they can afford it and won’t miss it? On average a rich person already pays more than a poor person both in overall tax and as a percent of income (at the national level, not necessarily the state level). How much additional tax would make things fair?

OK, much of our tax system is based on ability to pay. A majority believes that or at least goes along with the basic premise, knowing it is more efficient to collect from people who have money than people who don’t. A majority also believes tax rates should be progressive. So I’m not going to recommend dismantling the entire system and replacing it with a flat tax or a fair tax. But I will say ability to pay and a progressive tax rate doesn’t equate to fairness.

Just last week Bill Gates Sr. used “fair share” in a guest column in The Seattle Times. Mr. Gates isn’t a politician, but he is one of the sponsors of Initiative 1077, which would institute a state income tax on high-income Washingtonians. In the column he wrote: “By requiring the wealthy to pay their fair share, our initiative will raise about $1 billion a year, which will be dedicated to a trust fund that will ensure the money is spent on education and health care.” At least Mr. Gates isn’t as slippery as most of the “fair share” crowd. While he didn’t define the term, the details of the initiative do: 5 percent of annual income above $400,000 for couples ($200,000 for single taxpayers).

Politicians and policy makers should be at least as specific as Mr. Gates. But I’m not holding my breath. That’s why I nominated “fair share” for the LSSU committee’s consideration. I don’t think “fair share” should be banned because of overuse or misuse (although replacing it with “more” or “enough” would often be clearer). But when “fair share” appears without a definition, I think it meets the criterion of general uselessness. I hope the LSSU committee agrees.