« North Korea's Missile Test: A Multiple Choice Quiz | Matthew Stavros's Blog | Why didn't waterboarding work? »
In Praise of Taxes
Getting the poor and lower-middle-class to vote against their interests has been one of the great successes of the conservative movement. I wonder, however, if the twin mantras against taxation and large government won't someday (perhaps soon) come back to bite the elite who've promoted them.
Smaller government means less oversight but fewer public services. The rich thrive with less oversight and can manage just fine without public services. The more vulnerable members of society, however, will suffer profoundly without good schools, unemployment insurance, hospitals, public libraries, paved roads, and checks on pollution and abuses of power (read discrimination and police brutality).
Less taxes and smaller government will make the rich richer and the poor poorer. At what point will the poor and lower-middle-class realize that the paying of taxes and the existence of a robust public sector is good for them? At what point will the rich and powerful alienate their base beyond repair?
I think the recent tea-baggers and many others need a lesson on how taxes benefit them directly and immediately. They also need to be taught that the government institutions and programs taxes fund are absolutely critical to their livelihood, safety, and general well being.
But what do you think?
(PS: As a side note, the US Department of Defense is terribly inefficient, consistently over budget, and replete with corruption and cronyism. Nobody suggest we "starve" or "shrink" that beast. On the contrary, most call for better and greater funding to rectify problems, improve oversight, and increase efficiency. Why doesn't the same principle apply to government in general?)
.
Smaller government means less oversight but fewer public services. The rich thrive with less oversight and can manage just fine without public services. The more vulnerable members of society, however, will suffer profoundly without good schools, unemployment insurance, hospitals, public libraries, paved roads, and checks on pollution and abuses of power (read discrimination and police brutality).
Less taxes and smaller government will make the rich richer and the poor poorer. At what point will the poor and lower-middle-class realize that the paying of taxes and the existence of a robust public sector is good for them? At what point will the rich and powerful alienate their base beyond repair?
I think the recent tea-baggers and many others need a lesson on how taxes benefit them directly and immediately. They also need to be taught that the government institutions and programs taxes fund are absolutely critical to their livelihood, safety, and general well being.
But what do you think?
(PS: As a side note, the US Department of Defense is terribly inefficient, consistently over budget, and replete with corruption and cronyism. Nobody suggest we "starve" or "shrink" that beast. On the contrary, most call for better and greater funding to rectify problems, improve oversight, and increase efficiency. Why doesn't the same principle apply to government in general?)
.
Advertisement
















We need to frame paying taxes as Patriotic.
We need to shame those who are not patriots and just want a free ride!
April 19, 2009 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mind you, of course we need all sorts of protections and oversight to make sure our money is spent wisely. But this is society. We live in one country. We are fellow citizens. We need funds for common purposes.
April 19, 2009 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like to say that I hate paying taxes, because "the government will just squander it on things like roads, law enforcement, fire-fighting, keeping a military ... you know, all that stuff none of us ever want..."
April 19, 2009 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The whole art of Conservative politics in the 20th century is being deployed to enable wealth to persuade poverty to use its political freedom to keep wealth in power."
- Aneurin Bevan
April 20, 2009 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink