There is no real controversy that the Republican tax act will
redistribute wealth upwards. Its best friends have persuaded themselves that it
will, however, benefit not only the Republican donor class, but the whole
country. Most taxpayers will get some tax cut, at least in the first years. Yes,
many will become medically uninsured. (That is, they will be “free to choose”
between no insurance and insurance they could not begin to afford.) And the cost
of health insurance will rise for everyone more than it otherwise would. Still,
these and other disadvantages for the poor and middle class will, it is
contended, be swamped by the tidal wave of new jobs and other benefits wrought
through the economic magic of the supply side.
It will not be a trickle down, but a Niagara. People, especially
politician people, can persuade themselves of the darnedest things when those
things coincide nicely with their self-interest.
Let us throw all caution to the wind and make the assumption
that this is not wishful fantasy, but reality. The tax cut will benefit the
poorest among us. It might then seem that the act would pass muster under John
Rawls’s difference principle, which permits measures that increase inequality
so long as they benefit the least well off social class. Would the tax cut in fact be just if it benefited
everyone at least a little, but increased inequality substantially?
