I knew the exact day (July 2) when the July issue of this magazine began hitting readers’ desks. That’s because responses to my column headlined “Taxes Are Good” started hitting my e-mail inbox.
I’ve written several columns about taxation, and they are usually pretty tough on hard-line anti-taxers. The July column went a little further, stating without disclaimers or equivocation that, well, taxes are good — because of what they buy. So it wasn’t surprising when the mail volume ran higher than for previous ones on the topic.
Price of community
In the end, fan mail and hate mail ran about even. This time, probably because my words were less measured, the responses were, too. But something interesting happened in the exchanges I had with those who wrote — about which, more later.
Clearly, taxation is an issue that hits a nerve. Those who reacted favorably are largely employed in government or in water and sewer utilities that rely on taxes or user fees. Those who reacted negatively mostly work in the private sector. No surprise there.
One reader said, “I have worked for a water district for nine years now, and I am learning how much work and money it takes just for the ability to turn your faucet on and have clean water.”
And another, a supervisor with a metropolitan water and sewer authority: “I have always been puzzled by the unquestioning anti-tax rhetoric that a certain segment of so-called leaders use to get the crowd riled up. No one takes note of the fundamental premise of human existence: That the survival of our species depends on living in some sort of community. Taxes are a way to pay for the benefits of mutual protection and shared privilege that are essential to us.”
Non compos mentis?
On the flip side: “I am going to assume this editorial was meant as a ruse to rile up your readers — I don’t want to consider the other option of your being non compos mentis. … If it only were that my tax money was being spent for infrastructure and security both socially and militarily — but such is not the case.”
The writer, a plumbing business owner, went on to list several federal government appro-priations from the current year with which he took issue, including $1.6 million for the Shedd Aquarium in Chicago, and $470,000 for a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Maritime Museum in Mobile, Ala.
And this from another business owner hailing from what he called People’s Socialist Democratic Republic of Michigan: “I have heard an estimate that it takes about three hours a day of paperwork for the average small business-person, with the actual amount increasing about 25 percent per year. That’s a tax on my time — I cannot ever go home at 5 p.m. and am happy if I do by 9 p.m. … The whole concept of taxes and other business torture fees is that the government is smarter than me on how I spend my money. I don’t think so.”
Then this one: “You asked, ‘Why is it OK for retailers, doctors, builders and restaurant owners to raise their prices when warranted, but not OK for the city and school district to charge more when their expenses go up?’ The biggest difference is that the retailer and the doctor and the restaurant owner are in a competitive economy — they do not enjoy the monopoly power that cities and school districts do.
“I can't send my kids to a school somewhere else on the money I pay in school taxes. I can’t get my water from some other company. … I am forced, by law, to deal with the entities who, for good or bad, run my township or city or state.”
Backing off
I e-mailed back to thank the people who gave me pats on the back. I responded to those who kicked me in the shins by challenging some of their assumptions but also admitting that I didn’t think government was perfect — that public officials had to be efficient and confine tax support to things that are truly important.
That’s where it got interesting. When I softened my position, those who had written to oppose me softened theirs — even those who had attacked me the hardest. So it does appear there is common ground.
It seems that when both sides give a little, there is room for reasoned discussion. That discussion then might focus on exactly what level of taxation, and for what purposes, is acceptable. A hundred people probably have a hundred opinions on that, but where there is discussion, there is usually room for compromise.
Maybe it’s possible for people from all perspectives to debate not whether we pay too much or pay too little, but whether what we get in services is worth what we pay in taxes and fees. That’s a critical connection to make, and it’s the basis for any productive discussion of taxes and spending.
It’s also the connection I’ve been trying to establish in all the columns I’ve written on this topic.
Comments on this column or about any article in this publication may be directed to editor Ted J. Rulseh, 800/257-7222; editor@mswmag.com.
