Making all tax records public

Here is an idea that Bananaman wholeheartedly supports, but unfortunately will never happen in the U.S.

Everyone's income and tax information should be public knowledge - easily available in a searchable database. This exists to a certain extent in Norway and Sweden, but even in those countries it is more difficult to access this information than it should be. Bananaman would support complete disclosure of every individual's income and tax returns - only addresses, phone numbers, and Social Security numbers would be off limits.

Why is this a good idea?

First, it would very effectively expose the vast levels of income inequality in the U.S. Most people are clueless about the extent to which wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few. Although wealth and income are not identical, this information would tell a similar story.

Second, it would expose the extent to which wealthy people avoid taxes. Perhaps it would shame them into paying more. Even better, perhaps it would increase pressure for a more progressive tax system.

Third, many of us already have our income information made public. It might add a little perspective to learn that a teacher's $60,000 salary is what a corporate lawyer earns in a month. Which job is more important to society? To Bananaman, the answer to this question is obvious.

Lastly, this data would provide extremely valuable information to expose cases of discrimination. It is very hard for a woman or a member of a minority group to know that he or she is compensated less than a white man in a similar job (and hard to demonstrate this in court.) Public disclosure of all income information would be make such discrepancies clear.

Aside from the fact that a rather large subset of Americans would go ballistic, what are the drawbacks to this idea? I suppose it might help thieves target wealthy households, but it is already pretty easy to figure out who has something worth stealing. It might make it harder for low earners to get dates, but on the plus side, they would know that their dates were not gold-diggers. The only real concern that Bananaman would have is that it would make it even easier for businesses to target consumers with money and purposely not market things toward low earners.

What about privacy? That is clearly a concern, but, to be blunt, Bananaman cares far more about reducing income inequality than about privacy. If you do not want your income and tax information made public, it is probably because you are ashamed. If you are poor, there is a social stigma that must be overcome. If you are rich, you probably know that you earn way more than you deserve, you pay too little in taxes, and you should be ashamed.

Oh yeah, this might increase resentment against the rich. Well, if you don't resent the rich, this blog is not for you. This idea is sweet and herbaceous - 4 bananas!

A really stupid idea.

For the sake of balance, here is a really stupid idea (that doesn't really even deserve Bananaman's attention):

There is a petition circulating around the Internet about the "Congressional Reform Act of 2012." It includes all kinds of erroneous information about Congress that has been debunked elsewhere. See this article.

The semi-interesting part is the quote from Warren Buffet, which is apparently real. He told CNBC, "I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. You just pass a law that says anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election."

It is unconstitutional, undemocratic, and bad economics. So why is this idea appealing?

1) People are stupid and don't understand Congress or economics.
2) There is an ingrained cultural assumption that rich people have some kind of special knowledge.
3) There is a dangerous myth that the budget deficit is among the most important problems facing the United States.

Bananaman will address points 2 and 3.

Warren Buffet is rich (and may even be well meaning), but he is not an expert on politics or economics. Some of his ideas are good. Others (like this one) are loony. These ideas need to be evaluated on their merits. His wealth does not give him any special insight.

Budget deficits are difficult to forecast and are absolutely essential during periods of economic contraction. Forcing governments to balance budgets removes the most effective tool to stimulate the economy. If the U.S. government had massively cut spending and/or raised taxes in 2009, we would be in the middle of a great depression today.

Allowing parents to vote on behalf of their children

Children are clearly citizens, but because they cannot vote, they lack a voice in the political process. Although a strong case has been made that lowering the voting age would be beneficial (see Henry Milner's, The Internet Generation), for obvious reasons there needs to be a minimum voting age. Therefore, it has been suggested that parents should be able to cast votes on behalf of their children because otherwise children are disenfranchised. See this article in the Globe and Mail.

Bananaman tends to agree that extending the franchise to children is justified by an equal rights argument. This post will consider whether it is also justified from a social justice perspective.

Elections are about the future. There are both short-term and long-term consequences to electoral outcomes. All of us have a stake in the short-term consequences of elections, but younger people actually have a greater stake in the long-term consequences of elections. Maximizing the voice of those with the most at stake in elections potentially can redirect some of our political debate toward long-term goals and, perhaps, create incentives for politicians to look beyond the next election cycle.

We live in a society where school levies are often defeated and public education is chronically underfunded. Much of our infrastructure is crumbling. The cheapest energy options in the short-term are probably the most catastrophic for the planet in the long term.

The simple math is that the older you are, the less likely you are to be affected by the long-term consequences of poor policy choices. Should we restrict the vote for the elderly? Perhaps. (This will be the subject of a future blog post). From a social justice perspective, we should do everything possible to enhance the voice of those with the most at stake. Allowing parents to vote on behalf of their children is an interesting approach for accomplishing this.

The idea does raise two important concerns: one logistic and one philosophic.

First, as a practical matter, this would be complicated. If a child has two parents, which one should cast his or her vote? If parents disagree politically, would it be possible to have each cast one half vote? How would children without legal guardians be represented? Managing the voter rolls in a scenario where proxy votes are allowed would be challenging, and opportunities for voter fraud would increase. In addition, voter turnout remains low in the United States. If parents fail to register to vote, they disenfranchise not only themselves but also their children.

Second, would parents (or guardians) truly cast votes in the interests of their children, or would they cast votes based upon their own interests? Although one might assume that these interests would generally coincide, it cannot be taken for granted that this is the case. It would always be the adults who are casting the extra votes. The equal rights argument is weakened if the end result is that the interests of parents are magnified at the expense of the interests of childless adults.

This idea is not fully ripe, but it definitely deserves further consideration. Three bananas!