h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I work in a property tax office in the U.S. so I think about taxes quite a bit. Actually I think about property values, which serve as the basis for property taxes. Anyway, I have formed some conclusions about what drives some people's tax-resistant ideology.

The key issue seems to be control or choice. People feel little sense of control over how much taxes they pay and what happens with "their" money. They feel more control over and responsibility for their own individual financial decisions in consumption, investment, and contribution. They perceive taxes as diminishing or taking away that control, that power. They're not happy that somebody else decides not only how much they have to fork over, but what the money they fork overk gets used for.

In a democratic society, taxpayers as voter-citizens can influence government spending decisions through electing the decision-makers or even make those decisions directly through referenda. So one would think that they would be happier with and more confident in the rates and rules that determine how much they pay in taxes as well as the policy and budget decisions that determine how the money is spent. But in western societies (and in the U.S. in particular), there seems to be a strong streak of individualism that seeks to maximize individualized decision-making power and looks at any sort of organized, collective action or decision-making such as taxation as suspect if not inherently oppressive.

So when politicians or pundits cry for "lower taxes" or "no tax increases," I hear them speaking from this individualistic or even libretarian point of view and in reality calling for less government, smaller government. Advocates of this point of view seem to think that economically as well as socially, we would all be better off if citizens were able to directly control a greater portion of their spending, investing and contributing decisions. They propose that decreasing the amount of organized, collective decision-making about how we spend, invest or give away our money would result in greater prosperity and welfare for all.

People who advocate such a point of view don't seem to have learned the lessons of the past that a strong government with a lot of economic power (through levying and collective lots and lots of taxes) is necessary to keep spreading out the decision making power to all citizens. They don't seem to understand that the improvement of democratic government over feudalistic government is not that it abolishes centralized decision-making but that it allows all citizens to participate in decision-making or to have real access to and influence on decision-makers. They seem blind to the possibility that in exchange for giving up direct decision-making control over a third or half or more of their money, they might actually live longer, healthier, happier lives as the government has more power to make sure that they can get a job that pays enough, live in house that is safe, buy products that actually do what they promise and avoid losing everything they own because of a severe injury or illness.

This strong streak of individualism and subjective distrust of "too much government" is an aspect of American culture and ideology that mystifies much of the rest of the world. The lack of national health care in the U.S. is a case in point. Many Americans fear national health care not so much because they fear increased mortality or decreased quality of care, but because they fear loss of choice about which physicians or hospitals they go to. Those who call for "lower taxes" and "no tax increases" seem to be just catering to this ideology of absolute devotion to individualized choice.

Some people talk about taxes using "my money" language, which is another indicator of this individualized perspective. A couple of tired American tax jokes that are illustrative: 1) "Did you ever realize that 'The I.R.S.' spells 'Theirs?' 2) "I was really happy about getting my tax rebate until I realized it was my money to begin with." People who express such sentiments fail to realize that taxes are not "my" money or "their" money bur rather "our" money.

Another problem with the "lower taxes" or "no new taxes" rhetoric is the lack of a clear, objective definition of those terms. The reality is that even in many communities, states or nations that have "held the line" on taxes or "lowered" taxes, what they've done is just fiddle with the rates or kept their aggregate collections level. However, many individuals, families or companies may be paying more money in taxes as their incomes or property values increase. Or if not in monetary terms, they see a greater proportion of their income go to taxes as they experience "bracket creep." Or if the state or national government cuts how much it sends to local governments, local governments may raise their own taxes to make up the difference. So the goal of "lower taxes" or "no new taxes" seems to be at best illusory and at worst deceptive.

I couldn't have put it better myself

Regarding your final paragraph; that's absolutely true. Here in Texas there is no state income tax. However, the state sales tax at 8.25% is in the higher range of US sales taxes. The money has to be made up somewhere.

Minnesota - where I live - has a reputation has a "high tax" state. However, our sales tax rate is 6.25% and it only applies to some merchandise. Clothing and most groceries are NOT subject to sales tax in Minnesota.

Whoops - that's 6.5% for our statewide sales tax. Several cities (including both Minneapolis and Saint Paul) add on an extra 0.5% sales tax for local programs.