Home › Blogs › Jon Henke's blog ›

Republicans are losing the taxation narrative

Submitted by Jon Henke on Wed, 10/08/2008 - 11:35
in

In a column perfectly representative of the increasingly common conventional wisdom on taxation, Tom Friedman is outraged that Sarah Palin doesn't think there's a "patriotic" duty to pay higher taxes...

...[Sarah Palin] declared that Americans who pay their fair share of taxes to support all those government-led endeavors should not be considered patriotic. ...  I can understand someone saying that the government has no business bailing out the financial system, but I can’t understand someone arguing that we should do that but not pay for it with taxes.

Tom Friedman apparently endorses the "shut up and pay" approach to taxation, wherein the elites tell us what we owe them and it is considered unfair, even unpatriotic, to question how much they wish to spend.  Where to start?

  • Eating, breathing and defecating are also necessary endeavors, but one would hardly call them "patriotic."

  • Thomas Friedman doesn't appear to understand the distinction between granting the legitimacy of some level of taxation and questioning whether there is some sort of "patriotic" duty to pay any amount of money the government demands. 

  • Sarah Palin's objection was specifically to "higher taxes", Friedman promptly neglected to notice the word "higher" and argued that Palin opposed taxation itself. 

  • What's more, Friedman argued that Palin had suggested people who pay taxes "should not be considered patriotic" - a brazenly absurd attempt to suggest that Palin had actually called taxpayers "unpatriotic". 

  • Eating, breathing and defecating may not be components of patriotism, but they appear to be higher on the list of qualifications for a New York Times editorialist than, say, basic reading comprehension.

Republicans are losing the public opinion fight on taxes.  When the concept of taxation shifts from "necessary evil" to "fair share" and even "neighborly" duty, then we can expect the tide of public opinion shift from "leave us alone" to "it's only fair".  

When combined with a tax system that is not broadbased and uniform, and which allows Democrats to sell tax hikes as "somebody else's problem", the fairness/duty framework is a very dangerous problem.  In that environment, the Right will be unable to avoid losing ground on the level of taxation, the nature of the tax system and the size and role of government.

Unfortunately, Republicans seem to have given up the moral case on taxation (i.e., it's not the government's money; government wastes our money) that they made so successfully in the 60's, 70's and 80's, in favor of short term electoral arguments (i.e., buying votes with tax cuts) and exaggerated utilitarian arguments (e.g., tax cuts boost the economy).  Those have worked for some time, but without the moral premise, those arguments have had declining utility. 

The Right won't be able to win a majority again until we radically change the story we are telling - and conventional wisdom - on taxes and the role of government.

0
Your rating: None

Comments

Its about spending in additiona to taxes

Submitted by superdestroyer on Wed, 10/08/2008 - 12:13.

If you want to know why talking about taxes does not work, look at the current occupants of the White House.  They cut taxes and then ran up a $5 trillion dollar debt to fund new entitlements and wars.  Many people believe that the Bush Administraiton kept the spending high to reward their friends. 

Republicans need to start talking about spending instead of taxes.  If people want large government, they should pay the cost in taxes.  Deficit spending allows people to enjoy government programs while passing the cost to others.  Until the Republicans stop supporting deficit spending, all talk about taxes, size of government, or entitlements is pointless.

It is time to get a new tool

Submitted by WoodbridgeVa on Wed, 10/08/2008 - 13:42.

"Unfortunately, Republicans seem to have given up the moral case on taxation (i.e., it's not the government's money; government wastes our money) that they made so successfully in the 60's, 70's and 80's"

First, the top rate up until Reagan was 90 percent.  Today it is 35 and even under Obama is only projected to go to 39.5.  Second, the income tax in tose days was not indexed for inflation so bracket creep kept boosting tax rates for everyone.  Third, the bottom rate was highe enough so the average person felt the pain (which might be a good thing). Fourth, Reagan did not promise to end government, he promised to end government waste.  Republicans at the time actually promised to make government the partner of the people rather than their master but a partner worth having, not a weak ineffective failure best characterized by FEMA.

Low taxes are better than high taxes an no one wants to go back to the 70s; but we are sounding like johnny one note with our tax message. When all you have in our toolbox is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. If a monsoon hit and the dikes burst flooding a community; the republican response would somehow be linked to the need to lower taxes.  We need more and better tools or we deserve to lose.

 

 

 

I agree...

Submitted by Timothy on Wed, 10/08/2008 - 14:07.

The mantra is getting stale. It's lost its meaning, as the others have pointed out, in an era of unbridled spending from the right.

And, what's the point of calling taxation a "necessary evil?" Obviously we need to keep taxation in check. But, you on the right speak of "government" as though it is not for, by and of the people. Government is us. We choose how to structure our communities. It is not us against them. It is us against us.

Perhaps the real problem is that you don't want to be a part of us? 

taxes

Submitted by Brad on Wed, 10/08/2008 - 16:01.

 

The obligation of the state to secure the consent of the governed regarding just about anything let alone taxing and spending has been undergoing serious degradation for sometime, it is interesting to note that even the pretense is no longer deemed necessary as recent events indicate.

 

Mostly agreement

Submitted by Jon Henke on Wed, 10/08/2008 - 16:03.

Until the Republicans stop supporting deficit spending, all talk about taxes, size of government, or entitlements is pointless.

Republicans do not a viable plan to address the spending problem.  They cannot continue to address the supply side of the budget (revenue), and ignore the demand side (spending). 

First, the top rate up until Reagan was 90 percent.  Today it is 35 and even under Obama is only projected to go to 39.5.

I wholeheartedly agree - and have made the point often before - that there's a fundamental difference between trying to fight 70% tax rates and trying to motivate a movement to fight the difference between 39.6% and 35.6%.  That's one reason we have to pivot to the spending side now, rather than waiting until ungodly high tax rates would become necessary again.

The Right cannot continue running on the tax message from 1980.

And, what's the point of calling taxation a "necessary evil?"

Taxation may be necessary, but let's not make a virtue out of necessity. Call a thing what it is.

...you on the right speak of "government" as though it is not for, by and of the people. Government is us. We choose how to structure our communities. It is not us against them. It is us against us.

We don't "choose".  We vote.  There's a difference.

35% is ungodly high

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Wed, 10/08/2008 - 16:38.

We live in a world where China, Russia and Ireland and many other countries now have tax rates much lower than 35% or above on corporate income, high end income, etc.

We dont live in the world of 1980, true. The rest of the world has learned the supply-side lessons that we have forgotten. In the process we have LOST OUR GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS wrt tax rates.

That was the correct point McCain has been making about the dangers of hiking the rate on small business and not fixing our overly high corporate rate. This is an invitation to companies to offshore and send their production and even HQ elsewhere. the net result is our huge trade deficit and

We cannot stand mute while economic stupidity reigns in DC. Any tax rate above 25% max is counterproductive and foolish, and a real fiscally responsible govt would work to keep it even lower.

 

Need to consider nominal vs. actual corporate tax rates

Submitted by johnson springs on Wed, 10/08/2008 - 22:21.

We live in a world where China, Russia and Ireland and many other countries now have tax rates much lower than 35% or above on corporate income, high end income, etc.

This is an oversimplification. The nominal rate for corps may be 35% but given our ridiculously complex system of loopholes, etc. no corporation is actually paying 35%. Reform would be nice, but still no one is moving to Ireland because of tax rates. As for Russia and especially China (really?), can you be serious?

Evil is that which is wasteful and ineffective...

Submitted by Timothy on Wed, 10/08/2008 - 17:50.

<blockquote>Taxation may be necessary, but let's not make a virtue out of necessity. Call a thing what it is.</blockquote>

Again, I think this messaging, which is the hallmark of the Right for as long as I can remember, is entirely counter-productive to building a cohesive country. It's one thing if we all want to pretend that we are living in the wild west, where our nearest neighbors are a day's horse ride away. But, we don't live in that world, and never will again.

Government is not "evil" even if it is necessary. The advent of pluralistic democracy is that which allows government to transcend the evil of which you speak. By guaranteeing core basic rights, and allowing all citizens redress for grievance, government can then become that which we choose (your difference between voting and choosing notwithstanding).

Why must I see building community infrastructure as "evil?" Why must I see education as "evil?" That seems a counter-productive and depressing way to view the core interaction that we all have, and always will have.

The libertarian fantasy of complete independence is a world that never was, and never will be. While I am heavily influenced by libertarian ideals, I long ago recognized that many of those ideals will never work in practice, never have worked in practice.

Rather, I'd prefer we designate wasteful, ineffective government as that which is evil. For example, the war in Iraq. The war on drugs. Unbridled deficit spending. Tax-breaks for oil companies while our dependence on foreign oil reduces our national security. Cronyism like unqualified appointments to FEMA and other agencies.

Calling taxation "evil" is too simplistic; a populist message that misses the point.

Guess who is running on "TAX CUTS"?

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Wed, 10/08/2008 - 16:31.

That alone should tell you that TAX CUTS is still a valuable and viable issue.  While I agree that Republicans are not winning the 'narrative' (boy do I hate that word though), the fact is that the most left-wing Senator in the US Senate and his campaign knows this issue is so powerful they are bamboozling the American people by taking credit for the BUsh tax cuts and calling their proposal to partially end the tax cut and raise taxes on the rich a "middle class tax cut".

The brazen dishonesty of this is one thing. But more compelling is the fact that even Democrats know that TAX CUTS is a winning issue.

All Freidman is doing is running interference for Biden's stupidity, its not even an issue. The whole discussion is beside the point. We all know that paying 'your share' is patriotic, and people should follow the law. The question is what tax levels we should have, and it is stupid, not patriotic, to have tax rates that are too high.  That's Palin's point. we also know hiking taxes kills jobs, hurts the economy, makes people poorer and feeds and already too big Government.

Republicans need to be talking about simpler fairer flatter tax system that lowers the price of Government, alongside lower spending that lowers the cost of Government.  The system is so complex that Obama CAN run on a bogus 'tax cut' message even while he really plans to impose the largest tax increase ever!!!

Part of this is to make this about TAX RATES not tax revenue. Obama plans a 'refundable tax credit' that it nothing more than a welfare check. He calls it a tax cut. But tax cuts are cuts in RATES or they have no beneficial effect on economic behavior, they dont incentivize work.

"The Right won't be able to win a majority again until we radically change the story we are telling - and conventional wisdom - on taxes and the role of government."

I agree. McCain didnt go far enough. he's right to be for lower corp income tax rates, they are absurdly high ... BUT WHAT ABOUT OUR TOO-HIGH PAYROLL TAXES? And why not ELIMINATE the income tax for most American and have a flat tax at the top?

We need a 15% solution: 15% of GDP for Federal Govt, no more. Simple flat and fair tax system. The "radically change the story" message is one in which we need to offer a RADICALLY BETTER ANSWER THAT THE DEMOCRATS CANT TOUCH. Radical tax simplification combined with a lock-down on the Governments share of the economy.

Do you think most Americans want the Governments share of the economy to be bigger than 25%? When it's pushing 30% today?

Keeping the debate simple and BIG, with big bold tax-cutting positions that are too simple for the Democrats to distort is the way to win.

And the way to lose? To fall into the trap of being the 'tax collector for the welfare state' never, ever, ever, give in on the bogus idea that it is 'fiscally responsible' to raise taxes. It never is, because you are balancing the govt budget by breaking the budget of the people in America. And in doing so, you are failing to exercise the fiscally responsiblie restraint on Govt spending.

 

 

Why then

Submitted by Goldwater has b... on Wed, 10/08/2008 - 17:52.

did we have a stronger economy, greater job creation, and rising wages before the Bush tax cuts than after the Bush tax cuts? 

whatever size government we have we should pay for it

Submitted by mnmod on Wed, 10/08/2008 - 22:16.

This morning I told my 15 year old son that his per capita share of the national debt was more than 30,000 dollars and it had doubled in the last 8 years. He was shocked enough to take interest.  I  think we should get rid of all $16 billion in earmarks to move the conversation away from wasteful spending to amount needed for investments, services, and safety net we want the govt to provide.  This quality comment thread gave me hope that there is agreement that taxes are necessry and not evil and a good discussion will continue about the govt we want and how we will fairly pay for it.  Near top of my list is universal healthcare provided in a quality and efficient manner. I have no problem with socialized medicine, as I see this as a  basic right in a country with our level of wealth and I will pay gladly more if that is what it takes to get there.