The current controversy over tax-inversions illustrates the costs to all of us of shrill rhetoric.

Is it too much to request that the editors of news media insist that those who advocate through them (including politicians quoted in the media) state the specific goals they seek to achieve through a stance on an issue and how the positions reflected in their stance achieve their stated specific goals?

As to tax-inversions, conclusory sound bites should be replaced with concrete questions such as: (1) is current tax law promoting or inhibiting our competitive standing (and how and by what criteria are the impact(s) being measured and who is doing the measuring) and (2) might not the (inevitable?) increase in after-tax income as a result of an inversion enable the company to expand services, offer new products, hire more employees, pay higher wages, and increase dividend to shareholders (many of whom are holders of 401(k) and pension plans) and (3) would the additional taxable income created through such expansion yield a higher net amount of federal tax revenues? Would an affirmative answer to any of such questions alter the views of those opposed to inversions?  Would a negative answer alter the views of those supportive of inversions?  Or would evidence contrary to our presumptions and assumptions simply mean we haven’t collected enough (relevant) evidence?

If the above questions are not the “right” or the “only” questions – and of course I present them as illustrative of a range of possible questions – then the discourse should expand or change to accommodate other or additional questions.  If we can move closer to consensus on the “questions” and insist on greater specificity on our objectives and the data that supports our positions, then we should be able more clearly to assess whether our disagreements are over goals or over (mere) causes and effects, in which latter case, let’s implement procedures to verify or refute the anticipated outcomes, and time periods over which to test the causes, effects, and outcomes.