If you ever question whether Grover Norquist is evil, know that he believes that the Greatest Generation is Anti-American.  Here's one of Grover's greatest lapses into honesty, and the reason I'm sure he has me on a special list.  He apparently didn't think that anyone would notice if he went all honest in a Spanish paper.

Each year, 2 million people who fought in the Second World War and lived through the Great Depression die. This generation has been an exeception in American history, because it has defended anti-American policies.  They voted for the creation of the welfare state and obligatory military service. They are the base of the Democratic Party. And they are dying. And, at the same time, all the time more Americans have stocks. That makes them defend the interests of business, because it is their own interest. Because of that, it's impossible to bring to the fore policies of social hate, of class warfare."

Doesn't hate taxes. It hates that taxes are so high to pay for programs that the government has no business being in charge of and for the vastly excessive government bureaucracy. Show me one Republican, conservative, libertarian, or otherwise who has said that a taxes are not neccesary.

Every year, I get my taxes done at H&R Block, and every year, the tax preparer tells me they've done all they can to save me money.

Every year, I tell them "I don't mind paying, the government needs the money more than I do right now."

This year, money is quite tight, with a new house, kids on the way, but I still said "the government needs the money more than I do" because in a Democracy, the government is US. Paying my taxes is paying for my future children's nation, and I owe my kids tomorrow my taxes today.

I agree, I don't hate taxes, and I am more than willing to pay my fair share.

But this year, having a Connecticut Civil Union, I had to do my federal taxes twice.  Once as if my partner and I were actually married by federal standards (to get the AGI there), and then again the way I had to file them: as "single".

The difference was $7000.  I paid $7000 extra because I can't get married.  I've done my taxes twice many times before (though previously only out of curiosity, not necessity).  And each time, we've wound up paying six or seven thousand dollars more than we would have had our relationship been recognized.  Multiply that by the 11 years we've been together, and you could buy a house in some parts of the country.

If we can ever re-define 'taxes' as 'community investment'  or 'patriotic dues' or some such, we'll start to see some real changes. Maybe 'Homeland Support Funds.' I'd love to see the right complaining about paying too much Homeland Support Investment.

Great post.  That's exactly how I feel.  GOPers never bitch about those million dollar a mile highways they use to drive their vulgar SUV behemoths down the road, nor do they bitch about five billion dollar aircraft carriers.  And they never complain about the TRILLION wasted in Iraq.

How many women on welfare for the next HUNDRED years in this country would it take to even begin to put a dent in a trillion dollars?

I fucking hate Republicans.

is 22 Megabytes of plain text.

I can't imagine a good reason for so much complexity and detail and I belive it's mostly loopholes and giveaways slipped in to let various powerful and monied interests cheat and not pay their fair share.

Also, the personal income tax situation is annoying enough to fill out all the paperwork and forms that I'd guess they could get a way with a tax increase if they simplified things because the net annoyance at taxes would be less. I'm suddenly curious: How much does this complexity cost the IRS? How much extra bureaucracy is required to grind through all the rules on their end and make sure everything was handled correctly? How much money would we save by eliminating needless complications?

Well said.  I have no problem paying taxes.  It is the price of a civil society.

Where I have a problem is the inequities built into the system such as the Alternative Minimum Tax (The NY Times has a great editorial on it today).  Why are my wife and I ensnared by this thing b/c we are married but would escape it if we were single?  I saw another poster said he pays more taxes because is gay and cannot get married.  Both of these things make no sense.  

Income should be taxed equitably whether or not you are married are not.  Shouldn't make a bit of difference.  If we got rid of this and other unfairness in the tax, I'd pay my taxes without a peep but until that occurs I will continue to be vocal about this and other inequities in the tax system.

I am impressed.  Also at the positive responses.

Touching really, that there are still people who are happy to pay for a better society.  The right wants us all to only think of ourselves, and to only see that tax line on our pay-stubs as "theft"

We must restore the honour and dignity of what it means to pay taxes.  

Count me as another one who doesn't mind paying taxes (and having written some pretty big checks over the years).  I've always thought it disingenuous for the right and libertarians to primarily and generically talk of "cutting taxes" when their real conversation should be about reducing spending, eliminating government programs, and/or shifting to  taxes to fees paid by relevant users.  But like most ideas promoted on the right, using honesty and directness in their arguments is counter to their nature.  

Personally I think the government is in the best position to do quite a lot for society and rather than reducing government spending per se we need to work on priorities and efficiency.  Frankly my experience with both govt and large corporations is that they are equally likely to be inefficient but that a well-run govt program will often be more cost-effective than the equivalent private sector effort.  Obviously both the profit motive and higher pay for upper management play into a sizable part of the difference but I think there is also a level of commitment differential.  Contrary to the conservative line, there are plenty of people out there that are motivated by more than a paycheck.  

I too feel proud to pay my taxes. When I have under-estimated, have to pay additional, I always count my blessings that our business has the money to do so. But I feel best when April 15th comes and I have estimated correctly and don't have to pay extra - like this year! Woooo hoooo!

But being a small business owner, I have to go through a file box full of personal records and put them in order before I can send them to my tax accountant then they add the business income info. There has to be a better, simpler way. Too many forms, too many hoops, too many records. We pay a lot for personal and business tax accounting and record keeping. And I spent a lot of time the past two weeks getting it all in order. (I am not one to record everything as I go! I seem to be too busy trying to get Democrats elected!)

Happy tax day everyone. My wish is that you all have paid in enough and don't have to send a check with your return!

Just a quick point here. You write well, but you seem to have forgotten throughout the essay that America is NOT a democracy, it is and has always been a Constitutional Republic.

.

Matt, I so much agreee.

I wish just once that I would hear a politician stand up and say these things.

So many of the problems in American politics come down to the fact that counter-arguments to pernicious ideas are never given voice. This is a great example of one such counter-argument that many proud Americans would relate to.

I would add that in my time canvassing door to door I found many center-right types that would be open to a critical evaluation of the question, "does the government waste money?" There is this correlate myth out there that it does, and there are certainly examples of graft and corruption in the defense industry and in the corporate tax code. A politician who was able to take these complicated mixtures of myth and taboo on in real time would face considerable backlash from the media cartels, but would on the other hand get some support from people not often sympathetic to liberals.

Viva la blogs!

I'm surprised so many people here are so happy to be forced to pay for a federal government that's twice as large as it was in 1994 when the Republicans took over (look it up -- $2.9 trillion vs. $1.46 trillion), and that includes being forced to pay hundreds of billions yearly for an illegal war of aggression.

The right doesn't hate taxes -- they're collecting more of them than ever before.  They cut tax rates a little to dupe the libertarians (who were once naive enough to believe that the left was the greater enemy of freedom) into staying on their side.

I agree with a lot of people here on a lot of issues, but high taxes is not one of them.  Democrats could make huge electoral gains if they would become the party of less expensive government.  Since George Bush is now outspending Bill Clinton by 62%, there is a lot of room for a Democratic presidential candidate to campaign on cutting the federal budget, while still supporting progressive priorities.

but it pisses me off when people and corporations get legal cheats out of paying their fair share.

There is no adjustment for local cost of living in the federal tax code.  This is fundamentally unjust.  Someone who lives in rural Tennessee and makes $50,000 a year is pretty clearly middle class.  Someone in San Fransisco or New York who makes the same salary is barely scraping by.  Yet they are in the same tax bracket, and pay identical taxes (minus the deduction for state and local taxes).  The former person probably even has a mortgage that they get to deduct, while the latter certainly is renting.  

Surely they can adjust by local HUD prices or something?

"And I suppose, if you hate democracy, as the right-wing does"

As a member of the right-wing I object to you questioning our patriotism.

The problem with the current tax code is that it fundamentally violates the concept of equal rights.

The concept of equal rights means equal treatment before the law.  But progressive taxation -- which is what we have now -- means different treatment before the law (the tax law) for different income levels - not equal treatment - and is thus a violation of equal rights.

Progressive taxation, as a means of financing government, separates individuals and assigns them different rights based on their income levels.  Those who earn less than a certain income level pay no taxes and thus have the right to government goods and services free of charge.  Those who earn above a certain income level are denied this right and are forced to pay for whatever government goods and services they receive plus pay for what the lower income earners are receiving.  Different rights for different people are not equal rights.

Of course, one could argue that everyone has the right to reduce their earnings to the point where they pay no taxes and thus everyone has the right to those free government goods and services.  However, if we all did that, there would then be no taxes paid and no government goods and services would be available.  Thus, progressive taxation, as a means of financing government, inherently depends on unequal rights.  Progressive taxation can only work by granting the right to free government goods and services to some while denying that right to others - it can only work by applying unequal rights.

So, if you are an advocate of equal rights -- and all liberals that I know claim to be -- then you should be opposed to our current progressive taxation and instead should advocate a flat tax.

Matt, I agree with the pride. I'm happy to pay for the right to live in this society.

But I also know that republicans don't hate taxes, they just disagree on what government should pay for....

....which, for the record, I think they are totally wrong about. The government should step in when there is a market failure.

to think of the tax code as our national DNA in any sense, especially morally.

but ok.

I pay taxes as well.

This is so wrong. The tax code says little about our moral compass. What the tax code indicates is that the majority of taxes are paid by the wealthiest people. If we are to look to some contemporary legal government document as the "DNA of our moral compass," the annual budget is a better indicator. It lays out what we are committed to spending in different areas, which is much more important than the multi-volume document that lays out where the money is coming to.

Aside from that, I look to the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights as the U.S.A.'s DNA document.

The original post was embarrassingly ignorant.  So much so that I believe the author was trying to foment a polarised discussion, and was stating things that he knows full well (as any informed American would) to be false.  These are frustrating times, but we must resist the temptation to go to extremes and to call each other names.

The founders of this country did not believe in giving government the power of taxation.  It was only the inability of private administrations of the day to adequately orchestrate public services that drove congress to pass a constitutional amendment allowing taxation.  It was most certainly not seen as a fundamental element of democracy, but rather as an expediency in the absence of anything superior.  The founders wanted desperately to avoid giving government the power to control the wealth of its citizenry, but ultimately had no better solution.

Moreover, jumping now to the present day, among conservatives it is only the Libertarians who call for no taxation whatsoever, and even they balk.  Fiscal conservatives in the Republican party are pushing to limit taxation to what is strictly necessary to fund indispensable programs such as the criminal justice system and national defence.  Almost all even concede to using tax dollars for disaster relief, care of the elderly, and for essential scientific advancement.

I believe most of us know all of this.  So, why all the bile?  We're two groups of people who disagree on what, specifically, public funds should be spent on.  Such disagreements are certainly to be expected, even encouraged, in a country of 300M people.  Success as a society begins with a genuine empathy for the opinions of others.  Extremism, however justified it may feel, or even be, is simply not a productive tack in a democracy.  To hate "the other side" so much that you seek for its destruction through misrepresentation and mudslinging is to work against the very democratic ideals that you purport to defend.

So get off your high horse, and I'll get off mine.  Then perhaps we can shake hands with our feet on the ground.

What? Just couldn't help responding to your patriotic diatribe...as seen on Hugh's site...

Look, we (the "right wing") aren't against paying taxes. I just don't like "how" my taxes are spent by the the government. Most of the money might go to respectable, honest use...like wages for government employees, or defense, or whatever.

But there is a long well documented history of PORK that is without a doubt, the biggest waste of OUR (you and me) money.

I'm certain you'll agree.

I agree that it is US (taxpayers) that keeps the Federal Government running each day, IN SPITE OF CONGRESS! But I believe you might be the only person in America who truly believes that Congress does a wonderful job of HOW that tax revenue is spent.

BTW...I live in the Aloha State (Hawaii) In spite of a second term republican Governor, we STILL are the center of the universe for TAX HELL!! Thank you to a Democrat majority in our State Legislature for over 40 years!!!!!!!!

Is it comforting to assume people who don't agree with you are evil? People who resent paying their taxes hate democracy?!?

Some people believe high taxation stagnates growth, and causes everyone to be more poor than necessary over a long period of time. (Or you could just assume everyone who doesn't enjoy paying high taxes is a fascist. That way you can feel superior.)

Some people don't mind the idea of paying taxes, but believe they are being taxed more than is necessary- that their tax money is being used inefficiently. They resent the waste, and the pork. (Or you could just believe they hate democracy and want a king to rule the US. Then you and your like minded friends could pat each others' backs. How fun.)

But even you would feel your tax rate was too high at a certain point. Even you would think the tax rate was killing the economy if the rate was high enough. If your rate was 70% of your income, for example. At that point, of course, you would not be someone who thought they were being unfairly taxed, or that the taxes were causing more harm than good, instead you would be someone who believes no one should be able to vote.
 

Great post Matt!

Interesting perspective.  I've commented on this post at Another Rovian Conspiracy.

Check it out!

Regards,
St Wendeler

Interesting comments. But I note that everyone's take on this seems to be rooted on the taxpaying side. I have actual experience, working for the IRS for over 30 years. So I have a view from the tax collecting side.

The philosophical differences between republicans & democrats, conservatives & liberals, aren't going to be resolved here, of course. And I wouldn't be foolish enough to try it! But let me make a few observations from my "insider" perspective.

First, it is evident to me that the Congress uses the tax code as a kind of shadow legislative system. They use it to govern the economy, and of course, that means that political viewpoints and pork seep into the code sections. When the gay man complains about the disadvantage to not being "married," he's complaining about a social policy established in the tax code as far back as I can see - and I actually had cases under the 1939 version of the Code when I first came on the job. The mortgage interest deduction fosters a policy of home ownership. The charitable deduction implicates decisions about what, exactly, qualifies as a charity.

I've seen code sections clearly intended as giveaways to corporate interests. I've seen sections intended as accomodations for specific individuals whom I could name. And I've seen code sections intended to redistribute income from richer taxpayers to poorer ones.

Second, it seems clear that the Democratic theory of taxation is that if we raise marginal rates, we will collect more money, whereas the Republican theory is that if we expand the economy by lowering rates, we will collect more money. The Democratic theory seems true in the short run, but untrue in the long run. The Republican theory seems untrue in the short run, but true in the long run.

Over and above this, it seems to me that Congress has a kind of "governor" on tax collections that it impliments by regulating just how much money the IRS has to enforce the Code. That is, no matter what the tax rates, the IRS will collect more money if it is given more funding, and less money if it is given less funding. In some instances, the IRS has been given specific funding based on the promise to increase collections by a specific amount in a specific time frame.

Third, the complexity of the tax code has led to a situation where a large number of people and businesses do not consider it wrong to evade taxes. It seems to me that things that would have been seen clearly as fraud and evasion a generation ago are now seen as legitimate, albeit close to the line.

Over my career, I have come to the conclusion that the income tax is the necessary element in the growth of government. Probably the most essential mechanism to making this growth possible was the invention of withholding. The system would fall apart without withholding (which I mean to encompass all the mechanisms by which individuals and business pay their taxes throughout the year, so that the filing of the return is really just a point at which the total payment is finalized.) At any rate, the ability to collect large sums in a fashion that is to some extent hidden from the public, and collect in a predictable manner, gives government the tool it needs to grow ever larger.

I have come to the point where I believe that we should have a Constitutional amendment capping the income tax at some generally acceptable level, subject to being overridden by a supermajority on a temporary basis. I also think that a flat tax is probably the best chance of actually getting something that is a relatively fair tax. (And the Democrats are right - you have to count the Social Security tax as an income tax in doing this.) I do not, however, believe that a flat tax is a simple tax - the complexities of the code are exacerbated by multiple tax rates, but they exist independent of that factor, and I don't see how they can go away, particularly in the business context. My reasons for believing this lie in the knowledge that even something as seemingly simple as deciding what is "income"in the first place is a complicated matter.

And this leads me to a final conclusion - or perhaps it is a fear. I think that the income tax has become so entwined with our economy that to change it significantly might cause severe economic damage, perhaps even another depression. In fact, sometimes I wonder whether our tax system, as complicated & perverse as it seems, has not actually been one of the engines of our prosperity.

Make of these observations what you may. The income tax is not going to go away, of course. But it does seem to me that it is badly in need of reform, and that institutional need to be raised to prevent it from getting out of control again once it is reformed.

...and that institutional BARRIERS need to be raised to prevent it from getting out of control again once it is reformed.

Anybody who is proud to pay taxes is welcome to make himself extra-proud by paying mine.

Taxman is correct at noting that taxes serve two disparate purposes.

One of course is to fund the government.  If you like what our government is doing -- ALL of what it is doing -- then yes, I suppose you could be proud to be paying taxes.  "I am glad to help pay for the occupation of Iraq." (For you right-wingers: "I am glad to help pay for disability payments to crack addicts.")

The other is to enforce social policy: "buy a house", "save for your retirement", "don't be too rich".  From that point of view, if you're proud of paying taxes, you are proud of the chain wrapped around your neck.

:::People like Norquist, who are charlatans at heart and deeply unpatriotic and immoral:::

When did it become acceptable to question somebody's patriotism again?  

"Patriotism is about recognizing that we are all connected in a fundamental moral and physical sense..."  No, patriotism has nothing to do with any feelings of interconnection, patriotism is taking pride in one's nation.

American Patriotism is about pride in a system that respects the individual.  That's not a stretch - our Constitution is the most individualistic ruleset for a government on the planet.  Simply read the notes or books from any of the signers and you'll understand why that is.

Taxation is very un-American because it stresses the collective over the individual.  It's nice you don't mind paying them but shouldn't I, as a 'free countryman' have the CHOICE to determine where my money goes?  If not, why is that?

An aside: dismissing those who don't feel it is honest, right, or honorable to do income-redistribution via the tax system as 'spoiled children' make your arguments weaker, not stronger.  

When I was a young lad I took a job as a mechanic's helper. The first car to come in after I was hired was in for a transmission rebuild. I remember being amazed as I watched the mechanic moving around under the car as it sat up on the rack, firing his air gun like an automatic weapon as bolts rained down on us. It seemed like he had that transmission in pieces on the work bench in about ten minutes.

That memory came to mind when I read Dale's masterful deconstruction of this post at QandO.net

Dear Matt Stoller:

In the name of all sane people everywhere, please accept this World's Most Gullible Moron award. It's the least we could do.

There's also a five dollars coupon for Pizza Hut under it.

Keep up the good work in financing the ruling class. Each and every one of us who has had to deal with the State and its arbitrary unjust laws really appreciate it. Thank you very much.

This is a very optimistic post. And yet...it makes me sad to read it.