« It Isn't Always Nice to Be Noticed | Main | Twenty(-one) Ways to Improve the City »
January 03, 2007
Government: Gluttons of Punishment? On Sin and Taxes
I must take issue with something A.C. Kleinheider posits in an oblique sort of rebuttal to Katherine Coble today.
Here's the background: Coble is against "sin taxes," because they represent, to her, the act by government (that unknowable, alien entity that, apparently, has nothing to do with the people it comprises) of manipulating behavior and thus exercising undue control over individual freedoms. So far, so good; right?
Kleinheider's all for sin taxes, on the other hand. He rightly acknowledges taxation as a "necessary evil" (unless anarchy is your bag, and I'm not here to preach that it shouldn't be) and concludes that we (They?) might as well impose higher taxes on those things that aren't essential, such as luxury imports and cigarettes. Fair enough, perhaps.
But in making his argument, he presents as foregone conclusion the notion that taxation is "punishment." What a pitiable stance this is. Just because paying taxes isn't the zenith of altruism doesn't make me feel punished for doing so. It's part of a contract I hold, as a citizen, with my fellow citizens; and, bonus, I get the chance to effect change on the contract's terms every single time there's an election.
Coble, too, animates the tax-bogeyman with her casting it as "having our money taken from us by force." Now I'm not stupid enough to think that one can't be forced to pony up, but it's again with the "our" money being taken -- by whom? By us, you silly! We tax us; it's not "Them." In what I readily agree is far too complicated and wasteful a way, I tax myself, and you tax yourself, and he taxes her, and she taxes those other guys. We all taxed poor Willie Nelson into hock.
There are plenty of current and historical examples where taxation (or tribute, it was often called) was really forced, where the taxed had no say in the matter. Jesus Christ is often quoted as admonishing, in his perfect Elizabethan, to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" -- easy enough for him to say, because if you didn't, you'd be soon acquainted with the inside of a Roman (read: foreign occupier) prison. And you couldn't exactly vote on the person you wanted representing your part of the appropriations.
Look, it's simple. A society, a state, is funded -- to provide to its denizens certain essential protections and welfare -- by its people all cordially agreeing (I'd rather, as opposed to being coerced) to pass the hat and collect a common kitty. The "honor system" doesn't exactly work, thanks to more than enough knaves who'd ruin it; so yes, there is the threat of the justice system facing those who don't comply with the rules. And again, when we don't like how much is taken, or how badly it is spent (hello, I don't think we needed a bazillion dollars' worth of protection from Saddam Hussein's Iraq), we are fortunate enough to have the opportunity to replace our fellow citizens in government with ones we deem better stewards.
As to income taxes, I just don't buy into the hysteria. I work; I pay a part of what I earn to uphold the structure that provides me, my family, and you, and your family, with a functioning country, state, county, city, whatever. If (hopefully, when) I earn more, I can buttress those structures more heartily; if I fall on such hard times that doing so would put me in harm's way, then I graciously, gratefully lean on the fortunes of others (until such time, of course, that I can resume my share). It's just not a punishment. No, it's not exactly a reward, either; it's simply a necessary part of living in civilization. Grow up and deal with it.
I realize that I will ruffle some feathers with this response, but the longer I resisted posting it, the more it ate at me. I don't have any codified New Year's resolutions, but a general goal is to avoid my erstwhile habit of letting things fester. It may not seem so from this blog entry, but I am very open to discussing the matter with those who hold differing opinions. We can all learn from each other, and more or less come to a confederated idea of how to proceed in this amazing experiment.
Parting thoughts: if you feel that your leverage, as a voting citizen, isn't what it should be, then we're already reading the same chapter, if not on the same page. There are way too many competing influences on our representatives -- chiefly corporations, and we all know that they don't pay any taxes. Any that they don't find loopholes for, they just pass along to you and me, and control our government, and laugh all the way to the bank. Or already are the bank. You want someplace to spend your hard-earned outrage? Start there.
UPDATE: Lest my words be misconstrued (I wasn't as clear as I could be), I am not "against corporations." Partnerships among individuals to do business are of course legitimate and worthwhile. What I am specifically seeking to decrease is the amount of influence these non-individual entities have on the workings of this democratic republic.
UPDATE 2: I found a concise and reasonable take on the matter at the TennEconomics blog.
Government | By joe lance | 08:55 PM