Conservative vs. Liberal Tax Policy: Analyzing Fund's Argument

Overview of Fund's Argument

In "The New War Between the States," Fund (2014) discusses the implications of states and cities with high taxes, including income taxes, versus those with low tax rates. The author's thesis is that states with lower taxes foster economic growth, which is why many people are moving to those areas. In fact, lower taxes are being used as a marketing tool to attract investors as well as new residents. Similarly, tax rates are playing a major role in political campaigns.

Fund frames the issue squarely as a conflict between liberal and conservative political practices. Cities with liberal mayors and states with liberal governors often lose residents who flee to more business-friendly areas, according to the author. Union-friendly political practices are described as especially damaging, causing residents and businesses to sink "further into economic stagnation" (Fund, 2014). On the other hand, many states are lowering or eliminating state income taxes altogether to stimulate economic growth. The southern states are especially leaning toward growth via tax breaks or tax elimination programs, as well as investor-friendly business climates.

Liberal vs. Conservative Framing

Fund (2014) frames the argument clearly and unequivocally in terms of liberal versus conservative politics. Throughout the article, the author uses the terms "liberal" and "conservative" frequently, in conjunction with standard and accepted definitions of those terms. For example, the author states, "The U.S. is swiftly becoming a tale of two nations. States that are following the Reagan model of low taxes and incentives are booming while states that are opting for the Obama model of wealth redistribution and European welfare-state economics are stagnating." Invoking Reagan is a clear signal of the fiscally conservative stance embraced in this article.

Similarly, the author states, "even cities with liberal leadership benefit from statewide policies that increase incentives for job creation." Thus, the primary area of concern for Fund (2014) is not social conservatism but fiscal conservatism. Fund (2014) also singles out labor unions and the corresponding political support for them, linking unions to liberalism. The core political issue in the article is economic policy, with the conservative platform of small government and little to no taxes being championed over the typically liberal platform of higher taxes theoretically channeled into public infrastructure. Interestingly, the author makes no mention of how public infrastructure — including services related to transportation and education — would be paid for in areas with no taxes, and he relies on logical fallacies and untenable assumptions typical of the conservative point of view.

This article is clearly conservative in that it suggests a business-friendly environment will magically create the quality of life and infrastructure Americans need. The author's diction likewise reflects a conservative stance, with disparaging phrases like "Obama model of wealth redistribution," which has no basis in fact. Likewise, the term "European welfare-state economics" reflects the author's opinion that Europe is somehow a problematic model — especially when compared to the cultural and economic vitality he implicitly attributes to cities like Phoenix and Orlando.

Conclusion

Fund's argument relies on ideological framing rather than comprehensive policy analysis, leaving critical questions about public infrastructure and services entirely unanswered. While he makes a compelling case that lower taxes can attract residents and businesses in the short term, his failure to address the trade-offs involved — particularly the funding of education, transportation, and other public goods — represents a significant logical gap. The article ultimately functions as a politically motivated argument rather than an objective assessment of state tax policy.