Taxes: Why Won't We Pay More? [essay]

***

It has become a mantra among many today to say that Americans will not tolerate paying higher taxes. There are two different reasons for this opposition.

1

Americans are notoriously more independent than individuals living in other developed democracies, where the average percentage of annual income paid in taxes is far higher than in the U. S. More than citizens of most other developed democracies, Americans tend to resist anyone’s telling them what they must do or what they may not do.

On the other hand, even in the United States few reasonable people fail to understand that many of those things upon which we depend for our well-being, from roads to electricity (for instance), can be provided only by government or at least by using the government-provided infrastructure on which these services rest. In fact, many of these necessary services, from the currency to defense and foreign policy (for instance), can be provided only by our national government. And of course, since we are preternaturally opposed to our government’s running profit-making businesses, for our government to provide the services we all need and want, we must pay taxes.

To many, however, it seems natural today to select as our governmental representatives only those who promise (like George Herbert Walker Bush), “No new taxes!” In fact, there may be a sizeable group who would demand promises from their political candidates to actually cut taxes, even though what we pay now is already relatively low for the citizens of a developed capitalist democracy.

As independent, free-wheeling individuals we Americans naturally dislike government in general. We may dislike national government more than state, county, and local government – or not – but in any case, we have a built-in distaste for government in general. It is not illogical for a recent, serious book on government to be called “A Necessary Evil.”

Today this endemic American distaste for government is exacerbated by the distrust of our elected officials, and of all government. This distrust is usually considered to have had its most recent origins in the administration of President Richard Nixon. Until that time, although they endeavored to be responsible to the public they served, media outlets not only tried to avoid partisan reports; they also had a tendency to “spin” the national news in order to show the U. S. government – of either party - in a favorite light. They did so even to the point of refusing to “scoop” their competitors rather than disparage our government, out of the respect they felt – and thought that all of us living in a representational democracy should feel – for our government. As a rule they encouraged their readers and listeners, as patriots, to respect their government.

It was harder and harder for our media to maintain that conventional stance as the war in Viet Nam dragged on and on and as the Armed Services’ reports on the war’s progress more and more often proved to be more public relations than the truth. Eventually it became unmistakably clear that President Nixon and his allies were more interested in serving their own ends – at least their desire to continue themselves in office – than in honestly serving those who had put them in (temporary) control of their government. In that difficult time the media realized that they had the responsibility to expose our leaders’ hypocrisy and lack of integrity. We have not recovered from this traumatized state of mind even thirty-six years after the President’s resignation in disgrace.

Thus, when presidential candidate Ronald Reagan joked in 1980 that the scariest words one might hear were “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you,” the tinder of our endemic dislike for government was even more ready to catch fire than it would have been.

(By the way, even though President Reagan was known as “the Teflon president,” the same was not true of the members of his administration, who all were subject to greater and more hostile scrutiny from the media than was common before 1970. And though he escaped the ignominy that might have been expected from the Iran-Contra scandal, if anything our distrust of government during Reagan’s tenure became more deep-seated than it had been before.)

Today, of course, every radio host and every blogger as well as every cable channel and every traditional media service seems to spend more time seeking scandal than trying to ascertain the facts of our corporate daily experience; and the long-held convention of showing respect for elected officials seems as old-fashioned as the Model T.

Thus, one key reason our aversion to paying higher taxes is more intense than the common-sense self-interest of wanting to keep non-discretionary spending to a minimum and our innate distaste for government. We resist taxes from any government even more today than we would “naturally” because we feel we cannot trust legislators or administrators to spend our money wisely or even honestly.

2

Our culture grew out of distrust and dislike for a social and economic elite. The first European-Americans from whom our basic attitudes, values, and politics grew were interested in making their own way, of succeeding in a young capitalist society where merit and talent were more valuable than inherited property or social distinction.

Europeans have always tended to look upon us as materialistic, pragmatic, unconventional, and self-interested. They have observed that we tend to be more interested in the here and now than in the distant future, more focused on facts than on theory or philosophy, more apt to be doers than thinkers. Such observations are certainly over-simple and may even be negatively biased, but they are based on the truth; they approximate the way most of us tend to be in reality.

An essential part of this middle-class culture we have inherited is a desire to use our money – every dollar – for real, concrete, and immediate benefits. We are less likely than many other peoples to plan long-term, to seek abstract ideals, to value what intangible benefits our money can buy. We want to pay for something we can see and touch. When we give to charity, as we do to an extraordinary extent, we expect to see for ourselves just how our generosity has benefited others. When we make a purchase for ourselves, we expect to experience what we have bought now, without delay.

We tend to expect immediate returns on our money, whether the return lie in securing prudent assets we need for the security and well-being of ourselves and our families, or in achieving immediate personal gratification or irresponsible quick-fixes. In other words, this practical element innate in American life is neither good nor bad in itself; it may be either. But this basic trait is observable every day all around us, whether directed to useful, responsible ends or to thoughtless frivolities.

The second fundamental reason we don’t want to pay higher taxes, then, even though we now pay less than citizens of other developed nations, is that we do not see for ourselves in concrete and immediate ways the goods and services that taxes tend to support. What good taxes do seems unreal, abstract.

Our competitive and fast-changing economy benefits some and disadvantages others. Those of us earning the benefits are expected to help the disadvantaged through government policies and programs. The concept is generally accepted, even honored; but the benefits to others who may be far removed from our own experience may seem artificial and unreal. This is particularly true of federal taxes, which are often used to the benefit of others living far away from us and for benefits that are themselves complex and hard to understand.

3

So Americans today, more than usually, say they will not vote for any candidate who does assert that she or he will not raise our taxes for two reasons: (1) more than usually, we distrust government, and also (2) we do not value government actions that provide benefits we do not see ourselves.

We know that taxes – even more than “the poor” – will be with us always. There are two ways a capitalist nation may support its government: through taxes, or through borrowing. The option of supporting government today by taking on more national debt seems risky to many of us (including the International Monetary Fund).

On the other hand, all of us can look around ourselves today and see that –

• Public education is failing
• Basic infrastructure is deteriorating
• Health care is ineffective, compared to that in other developed nations
• Our electoral system is dominated by big money
• Our media is factionalized and controlled by a profit motive to the exclusion of public service
• Volunteerism is declining (except in the schools), and the number of those giving to charity is dwindling
• Efforts to serve our interests abroad seem permanently underfunded.

As long as we are at war, particulary in a distant land, if we are to have good government in the United States of America, our government will need to be better funded than it is today. This would be true even if we had no corruption (such as paying unscrupulous corporations grossly inflated fees or winking at wealthy companies’ or individuals’ unwise or unprincipled actions).

Our government is under-funded. We do not want to take on more debt. Our only remaining alternative is to devise a raise in our taxes that the majority of Americans, despite our distrust and our desire for immediate gratification, can recognize as fair and just to all.

To fail to accept this conclusion, is to prevent our nation from moving forward, as we all want.

***