» This Story:Read +| Comments

Americans don't mind taxes -- they hate tax loopholes

Network News

X Profile
View More Activity
Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
By Joseph J. Thorndike
Sunday, September 12, 2010

Americans hate taxes, right?

We vote for candidates who promise to cut them and punish candidates who pledge to raise them. We tell pollsters we don't want to pay them. And we teach our children that the nation was founded to resist them. From the Boston Tea Party to Shays's Rebellion to California's Proposition 13, we are a nation of tax revolters. Hand us a pitchfork, and we'll march on Washington -- just witness the "9/12 Taxpayer March" on Sunday on the Mall.

This Story

This is the history underlying today's battle over the Bush tax cuts, the economy and President Obama's complicated call for new business tax breaks even as the nation faces crippling budget deficits. Yet it's a history that doesn't quite meet the test of, well, history. Oliver Wendell Holmes once observed that "taxes are what we pay for civilized society," and for more than 200 years, Americans have been remarkably willing to pony up. It's not that we hate the financial inconvenience of paying taxes -- we hate the injustice of an unfair tax code. We've long agreed to pay the price for civilization. We just can't tolerate anyone looking for civilization on the cheap.

Consider the Boston Tea Party, the creation myth for today's anti-tax activists. It was a protest not against taxes but against tax loopholes. The colonists who dumped tea into Boston Harbor were objecting to a special tax exemption that Parliament had granted to the East India Company, a well-connected enterprise that in the early 1770s happened to be in dire need of a government bailout.

In the centuries since, national crises have periodically transformed our fiscal infrastructure. Wars have usually been the catalysts, establishing the need for new revenue and exposing the inadequacy of existing taxes. Economic collapse has also triggered change, particularly during the Great Depression, when President Franklin Roosevelt gave the federal tax system a distinctly progressive cast.

But if crises have sparked change, they have not shaped the details. Deep popular worries over fiscal unfairness -- and over tax loopholes in particular -- have been central to the overhauls, with presidents from Abraham Lincoln to Woodrow Wilson to Barack Obama struggling to reconcile fiscal imperatives with prevailing norms of social justice.

Since at least World War II, when our current tax system took shape, the federal revenue structure has been undergirded by an implicit bargain. Middle-class Americans have agreed to shoulder much of the burden, through income and payroll taxes. In return, they have insisted that rich Americans pay higher rates -- sometimes much higher.

Such progressive taxation has sometimes been proposed as a means to make society more egalitarian. In 1935, for instance, Roosevelt defended his plans for tax reform by highlighting the failures of the existing system. "Our revenue laws have operated in many ways to the unfair advantage of the few," he declared, "and they have done little to prevent an unjust concentration of wealth and economic power."

More often, however, progressive taxation has been advanced as a means to redistribute the tax burden more fairly. Rep. Cordell Hull of Tennessee, a champion of the income tax during the 1910s, repeatedly stressed the need to reallocate fiscal responsibilities, not overall wealth or economic power. "I have no disposition to tax wealth unnecessarily or unjustly," he said, "but I do believe that the wealth of the country should bear its just share of the burden of taxation and that it should not be permitted to shirk that duty."

But here's the problem with progressive taxation, especially when it features high rates on the very rich: Carried to an extreme, it can prove its own undoing. When faced with high marginal rates, wealthy taxpayers always seek loopholes. Such tax avoidance costs money, but even worse, it undermines the legitimacy of the tax system itself, eroding what economists call "tax morale." Commentators who bemoan the decline of Americans' trust in government need look no further than the public suspicion that the tax system is not fair -- that some people are shirking their fiscal duties through legal tax avoidance or illegal tax evasion, with the help of lawyers, campaign contributions and lobbyists.

President Ronald Reagan understood the political dangers and opportunities presented by this fact. "The American people are always willing, even eager, to do their duty," he observed during his campaign to reform the tax system in 1985. "But you quite naturally resent it when you see others shirking theirs. It rankles to know that your tax rates are so high because others who can afford high-priced lawyers and tax consultants are able to manipulate the system to avoid paying their fair share."

Populist resentments have often been used to justify even higher rates for the rich. As President John F. Kennedy pointed out in 1961, "Whenever one taxpayer is permitted to pay less, someone else must be asked to pay more. The uniform distribution of the tax burden is thereby disturbed and higher rates are made necessary by the narrowing of the tax base."


CONTINUED     1        >


» This Story:Read +| Comments
© 2010 The Washington Post Company

Network News

X My Profile