Too often there’s a disconnection between the debate on a subject and the reality of the situation. While hopeful aspirations remain desirable, they’re ultimately worthless and even deceptive if they’re based on misconceptions.

An example that illustrates what I’m talking about — as well as one of my pet peeves — is the outcry the rich should pay their fair share of taxes. I’ve got no personal stake because I’m not rich. It’s important nonetheless to acknowledge the rich pay far more than their share of taxes.

According to information from the Tax Foundation — a nonprofit, nonpartisan tax research organization based in Washington, D.C. — the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid $616 billion in income taxes in 2018. That’s 40 percent of all income taxes paid and a larger share of the tax burden borne by the bottom 90 percent of taxpayers combined. It’s the result of a progressive system that taxes increased income at higher rates.

I welcome debate with those who believe the rich should pay even more in taxes and base their arguments on good reasons — not only the rich can afford it. While you’re at it, tell me why a government hell-bent on increasing spending regardless of the long-term ramifications needs even more tax revenue. What’s the public good more efficiently achieved by government?
Just drop the argument the rich don’t pay their fair share of taxes.

By the way, it’s disingenuous to argue the tax code is rigged in favor of the rich when more than a third of all taxpayers have no income tax liability because of the credits and deductions that have been created or expanded in recent decades.

Another example that comes to mind is the outcry to end the use of fossil fuels.

I believe there’s an argument to be made there’s a better way to power vehicles than gasoline and diesel — that electric vehicles ultimately could work better without producing emissions. I also believe it makes a lot of sense to take advantage of solar energy, especially in powering individual homes and businesses.

However, oil and natural gas are used for a variety of other purposes, including the manufacture of plastics that make modern life possible.

Two men involved in the energy industry recently pointed that out in an online briefing arranged by the Grand Junction  Area Chamber of Commerce and Western Slope Colorado Oil and Gas Association. They talked specifically about the plastics that go into syringes and other medical equipment that save lives as well as the plastics that go into the gear that makes outdoor recreation more enjoyable.

It’s confounding to me the manufacturer of outdoor gear made with plastics would refuse to allow the placement on its jackets of the logo of a company that helps produce the petroleum used to make those jackets. 

That’s not to mention still another use of fossil fuels in producing renewable energy — the steel and fiberglass to make wind turbines, for example.

Respectful debate is a good thing in bringing to fruition good ideas and better ways of doing things. No one party or individual owns the franchise on good ideas. It’s important, though, to base debate on verifiable facts rather than misconceptions.