“On the beauty of paying taxes,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, April 13 -19, 2012, 21.

ON THE BEAUTY OF TAXES

Many years ago, when my sister and brother-in-law opened their training and consulting firm, I asked her what was their goal. “I hope to pay more than $1 million in taxes,” she answered. I thought it was the oddest answer. If the only things we can be sure of are taxes and death, why welcome either? It took me some years to appreciate the wisdom of her answer.

Why do we hate paying taxes so much? There are three main lines of arguments used by militant groups, such as the Tea Party or American for Tax Reform, and other, run-of-the-mill libertarians, to answer this question.

The first, principled, suggests that it’s a question of justice: I deserve to retain what I earn. Any tax whatsoever infringes on my individual rights. The government is taking away something I own.

Though there are Constitutional provisions to raise funds for government needs, such as wars, a uniform personal tax is a much later addition the reasonableness of which remains questionable. Those making this argument also refer to the 16^th Amendment (1913), and suggest that not all states ratified it.

A variant of this argument is aimed at inheritance tax, for example, as an outright theft: I already paid once income tax, why must my heirs pay again for the same earnings when I die?

Nine states have no income tax—illustrating that income tax isn’t necessary to run a state—but charge fees for particular services and have sales taxes.

The second, functional, set of arguments uses a different logical line: federal and state governments are wasteful; if taxes were reduced, they would necessarily have to shrink in size: when starved (no taxes), they will die (a natural death).

The third, applied, set of arguments concedes that taxes are needed for some public goods and services, but wonder what the simplest and fairest system of taxation would be. Progressive taxation—the system we currently have, where the rich pay more proportionately on additional increments of their income—is contrasted with a flat tax system—where everyone pays the same percentage, say 10%, of their income regardless of how much money they make.

No matter which set of arguments appeals to you, think about the social contract: are you getting more benefits out of paying taxes? What if you paid none? What services can you do without?

Should only use-taxes be paid, as Milton Friedman suggested decades ago? If you use the road, pay toll; if you go into a park, pay a fee; if you call the fire department, pay a protection fee. Perhaps this is what the Mafia understood all along, personalizing protection fees, and providing safety nets only for its members.

The focus on reducing government expenditures is always warranted, unless we want to go to wars. Will government agencies necessarily become more efficient if their funding declined? From Reagan to Obama, with or without tax breaks, Republican and Democratic administrations alike have routinely failed to shrink the government payroll: about 22 million currently work for the government (about 16% of the total workforce).

The US Postal Service—a federal agency, lest you forget—is trying to reduce its deficit of $14 billion by $3 billion, focusing on closing facilities and not replacing retirees. But as a federally-mandated public service, it has less flexibility than FedEx or UPS.

Will its size shrink? Will service be compromised? What if it were eliminated? Who’d suffer? Should we care about the few rural residents when the many urban dwellers have alternative options?  

Instead of focusing on taxes as the root of all evil, let’s focus on government waste, locally and all the way to the federal level: when you see waste, call your representatives, write them an e-mail, or suggest alternatives.

Think about what services you can do without: garbage collection, potholes repair, clean air, parks? What are you willing to pay for individually and take away from government control: sidewalks, street lights, health care, food inspection, burglary alarm?

There are those whose defiance of the social contract is more extreme. They belong to the underground economy or black market. Their unreported income is estimated at around $2 trillion annually with an effect of tax revenue loss of about $500 billion, representing about 10% of GDP (of course in other countries, such as Greece and Italy, it accounts for as much as a third of GDP). Would you like to join their ranks?

While you ponder this question, I’ll stay in the social contract, pay taxes and enjoy government services. I still dream of paying $1 million in taxes, consulting the best tax lawyers in town. Would you mind joining my dream?

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com

“They just don’t make sense,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, September 2-8, 2011, 19.

REALLY?

All too often we come across something that just doesn’t make sense. We look at something and wonder, really? Is it inconsistency, blindness, or hypocrisy? My observations are random

without any priority to one phenomenon over another.

We have compassion for homeless people, trying our best not to judge their choice to live under a bridge. But, what’s with the dogs? You hardly can take care of yourself, so how can you afford to care for a dog?

With a national commitment to health and wellness, numerous gyms and personal trainers are available at all hours. But have you noticed how close to the entrance clients must park? They plan to run on a treadmill, lift weights, or spin; are the extra few steps from across the street a physical hardship?

Hikers and bikers, runners and nature-loving casual walkers need to get to their destination by car. They don’t start from home because no good trail is nearby. But must they drive in the biggest SUV possible, the one that consumes the most gas?

What about so-called conservatives who want the government off their backs, but invite them to their bedrooms? If the point is less rules, regulations, and laws, why insist on having the government check what we do in the privacy of our homes? Why do we even have law about marriage, sex-workers, or marijuana dispensaries? Why not get the government out of the morality/sin business and leave it to religious organizations?

It’s odd to hear teachers or professors complain about the burden of grading students’ papers. After all, isn’t this part of the job description? Next thing they’ll complain about preparing lectures and having class discussion. Do teachers not like students? If not, why to they collect salaries from educational institutions?

When citizens make the decision to seek public office and become politicians, they are supposedly there to serve the public. The public puts its trust in them and the character they have portrayed in their campaigns. Is it unreasonable for them to be scrutinized by the press? Didn’t they volunteer to be in the public eye to begin with?

Restaurants offer customers a meeting place to eat and drink with their friends or colleagues. Though private by legal definition, restaurants are public spaces as well. Why do customers complain about the noise? Do they expect to dine all alone the way they do at home?

So-called liberals believe in the efficacy of taxation to provide public goods and services, like military defense and social welfare safety nets for the entire population. Progressive taxation as a means to redistribute wealth and income has been their motto. So, why do they hire expensive tax advisers and accountants to find loopholes and extra deductions?

Though we rarely find obese people in Colorado, the healthiest state in America, when they drink from large receptacles of Diet Coke or Pepsi they buy at Seven-Eleven at all hours of the day, we wonder: does the “Diet” designation make such a big difference? Are any sodas devoid of sugar or sugar-additives? It may seem a small amount, but what if they are drinking a gallon at a time?

Speaking of food, what about the black-tie events, where five courses are offered in opulent settings—hotel ballrooms, private country clubs—as fund-raisers for the homeless? The most hilarious breakfast I attended as a guest of cardiologists (for Peak Vista, if I recall correctly) served steak and eggs, ham and sausages, white rolls with butter, and basically everything one can think of as unhealthy nutrition. Wouldn’t granola and fresh fruit have been appropriate?

The right to own guns, as the Second Amendment to the Constitution is interpreted in terms of individual rights and not a group right (militias), is exercised in the West and South much more than in other parts of the country. With the proliferation of gun ownership and lax licensing regulation, is anyone surprised at crazy cases of random (or some claim deliberate) shooting of innocent people, as was seen in Rep. Giffords of Arizona?

Is it more cost-effective to build basketball or baseball fields, indoor sports arenas, music halls, and video-game arcades than prisons for juveniles? Have you ever seen a sweaty youngster after two hours running on a soccer field climb a fence to burglarize a home?

And finally, when you hear bad things about the “government,” how we should get rid of it, remember that they are talking about you! Our Constitution considers citizens as the sovereign—the ultimate seat of power and authority—while the government represents and serves, and is replaced at regular intervals. Congress as such isn’t the problem, it’s the millionaire, career politicians who are!  

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS and likes reading students’ papers, paying taxes, and isn’t interested in his friends’ sexual habits. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com Previous articles can be found at sassower.blogspot.com