Taxes

Friends,

Let’s talk taxes. OK, nobody wants to talk taxes, but taxes are a hot topic during this upcoming election season, and we need to pay attention.  The basic question is how do we establish fair tax policy? My short answer is that I don’t think we actually can. But stick with me as I try.

To summarize: the central issue is that we simply must establish a balance among competing interests to find an equitable means to raise money necessary to meet our crucial community and societal needs. In other words, let’s talk taxes whether we want to or not.

So here’s a mini case study about why tax policy is so difficult in general terms as well:

There are several other houses on the private dirt road leading to our Maine cabin. For a number of years it has been a challenge to figure out how to collect an adequate amount of money from those who live on the road to pay for necessary annual road maintenance, and who will assume the unpopular task of administrating the program as the “tax collector."

The key concept is the inevitable question of fairness. People living year round on the road might be asked to pay more. Those who live in larger homes and are likely wealthier might also be asked to contribute more. Those of us at the end of the road versus the houses at the beginning certainly use the road disproportionately, and this may need to be considered. And ultimately the most difficult question of all is "how and who" finally decides what would be a fair road tax in the first place? So in spite of the often intractable complications to raising fair road tax we don’t really have a choice if we are all to live together peaceably on the road. So in spite of the challenge, we still need to work together if we are to maintain a friendly local community.. And how well we resolve the tensions related to fund collection and distribution is therefore a fundamental need in maintaining a peaceful community. And this also true of taxation in the wider society as well, whether it’s among neighbors or society at large. [If you are interested, see below for how we actually have tried to engage in the ongoing challenge of the cabin road tax problem.]*

Wide angle lens now to public governance: Every governmental jurisdiction eventually deals with how it is going to collect revenue to meet its constituency's needs. And in a democracy one of the major ways we assess a political candidate is often related to their position on taxation and how they would raise and then spend the money they have collected. A more conservative politician will be more cautious and reluctant to spend money, and many of us admire and respect this kind of careful accountability about how money is raised and how our common funds are spent. A more liberal politician takes on a more expansive responsibility that prioritizes the allocation of public funds to those most in personal need. This is also an admirable political stance on taxation and distribution.

Different points of view are often heatedly debated and all the debates about taxation are really at heart a discussion about a budget as a moral document that represents a community's commitment about how wants to support each other. And this is true whether it is at the local church, community group, or a democratic governmental budget. (Taxation by autonomous dictatorships are a whole other matter, of course!)

As average citizens we may feel we have little or no influence over the budget negotiations when, in fact, it is crucially important that each of us give some personal thought about the morality of the taxation process. What are our your own personal priorities in terms of what level of mutual support you think we owe one another? What priorities would you identify that would best meet the needs of the wider society? Then after we have each given some careful personal thought to these questions, and have even done some “soul searching” about how strongly we feel about our sense of mutual responsibility, we can then more effectively engage in the wider public discussions. And I suggest approaching taxation and budgeting as a moral exercise is important whether it is within our family discussions about money, our community budgeting discussions, or a candidate forum for elected officials. We would do well to judge candidates, for example, by assessing their budgetary positions relate to your own.

Final thoughts: Not surprisingly I personally lean heavily toward a liberal bias that believes a major responsibility for a civil society is to provide for the basic needs of their community, especially those who are least able to meet those needs themselves without public support (which, in all honesty, of course, includes us all to some degree!) I try to take seriously the “love ethic” economics of the teaching of Jesus that emphasizes the special responsibility for caring for the poor, the disinherited and marginalized - the “least of these” in biblical language. Another way to describe a compassionate approach to taxes and budgets is as the economics of the common good. (And I so deeply regret that this ethic of compassion is corrupted by pejoratively calling it “socialism.”)

A society built on trust, mutual respect, trust and compassionate care will take seriously its difficult and often messy responsibility to raise and distribute the funds necessary to maintain its economic responsibility as a civil and peaceful community. As we launch into the political debates this fall, let us be prepared to engage our neighbors which whom we share a road or a park or any form of common space or responsibility - whether our family members, members of our various communities, and our elected officials  -about our personal vision how we can best honor our commitment to the common good through various levels of necessary taxation.

Peace,
Tom
________________________

*When tensions among members living on the road rose to open antagonisms about the “road tax," I called an impromptu circular meeting on neutral turf to try to hash out the various points of views and expressions of self interest. Everyone had an opportunity to speak. The final inadequate but acceptable solution began with agreeing on the actual cost to adequately maintain the whole road. Then we noted the perfectly equitable amount would be to divide the cost among the number of people on the road without introducing all the complicated computations of individual fairness which we anticipated was rejected. We then left it for each person to decide on their own what they considered a responsible contribution toward the general fund noting that if anyone is  willing and able to contribute more tit would be deeply appreciated. And we had no recourse for further accountability beyond a sense of realizing it was in the best interest of our road community for people to contribute toward the common good. We agree to make public who contributed and how the money was spent. And as expected discussions continue, but the acceptance of even provisional agreement has provided for a more peaceful community  I think this little micro study of taxation really does explain why it’s so difficult it is to establish and execute any tax policy. And we who cherish our often clumsy and inadequate democracy continue our chronic struggle against “taxation without representation” as we continue the challenge to establish tax policy and work and live together.