georgephillip
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #521
How do we fund government equitably without dictating behavior if not through the carrot and stick of taxation? The ACA is an example of what you get when a corporate vice-president writes legislation, but it would seem like government would have good reason to encourage home ownership, for example.Is the following an acceptable definition of "social engineering"?It means we disallowing using the tax code to implement "social engineering".
"Social engineering is a discipline in social science that refers to efforts to influence popular attitudes and social behaviors on a large scale, whether by governments, media, or private groups."
Social engineering (political science) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good as any, I suppose. But you're missing the point as well. I'm not disputing social engineering - its definition, or its value. I'm condemning the practice of implementing it surreptitiously through the tax code. We're using it to dictate behavior in ways that wouldn't pass Constitutional muster if they were attempted via honest legislation.
The ACA provides the perfect case in point. I'm pretty sure that even the Roberts Court would have struck down a federal punitive law that fined people who refused to buy insurance. But they allow it when framed as a 'tax incentive'. Likewise if we started fining people for refusing to have children or maintain a home mortgage, the shit would hit the fan. But that's exactly what we're doing, all the while pretending it's ok because it's couched away in obscure tax rules.
All this has been done by ambitious legislators that want to rule people outside the confines of Constitutional limits, and the Court has let them get away with it.