71

No representation without taxation

Amity Shlaes

To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.

Get Adobe Flash player

TEXT OF COMMENTARY

Kai Ryssdal: Those famed secret Swiss bank accounts are going to be getting a little less secret. The Swiss finance minister said today he's going to loosen up secrecy laws to keep Switzerland off a European black list of tax havens.

Back here at home it's not tax havens so much that politicians are worried about, it's tax increases. President Obama's going to have to deal with criticism from both sides of the aisle in Congress as he works out his budget plan for next year. Commentator Amity Shlaes says the discussion can't forget the lower ends of the tax charts.


Amity Shlaes: Taxation without representation. That's what our nation's founders rebelled against. Subjects in the colonies were sending money home to the crown without getting say in their own government. The course of U.S. history can be seen as progress by those who are taxed to get representation. Think of women with the 19th Amendment.

Along the way we began to pay out money to groups that paid no income tax at all. There's Medicare, of course, for senior citizens, even if they never worked; welfare for the poor and struggling, at least through the 90s. And, more recently, there's the earned income tax credit, a break for low income workers. The credit was designed to make people want to work and to offset their heavy pension payments for Social Security. The result of expanding it, however, is that many people who work don't pay income tax. Instead, they get money back.

Do we want to help weaker citizens, especially in downturns? Totally. In fact, both parties have plans that relieve yet more taxpayers of their burden. Republicans like payroll tax holidays. And the Obama administration is zeroing out the income tax obligations of yet more citizens.

But a tipping point does come when too many are paying out and too few are paying in. Maybe that tipping point is now. Today, households in the bottom half of earners pay only 4 percent of the income taxes. One tiny group, the top 1 percent, pays close to 40 percent.

This can slow the economic recovery we're waiting for. Top earners won't want to keep producing if their burden gets much heavier. But the more important problem is a problem of civics. All presidents talk about the need for community. We strengthen that sense of community when everyone has to pay some taxes. Like jury duty, paying taxes reminds you that you are part of something; it reminds you of what you owe, not just what's owed to you.

The mood of the skeptics today is just the reverse of the mood at the Boston Tea Party. Then, we said no taxation without representation. Today, try flipping that line: No representation without taxation.

Kai Ryssdal: Amity Shlaes is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Pages

Richard Schweitzer's picture
Richard Schweitzer - Mar 14, 2009

Unless one just wants to carp, a way to get the impact of Ms Shlaes talk would be to consider:

Suspending the withholding of taxation for all but those in the top 10% (or 20%) bracket progressively (first just 1 period out of 4; then 1 out of two; then totally); but require the taxpayer to make a cash payment (calculated and reported by the employer just as if it had been withheld)within X days after receipt. If not paid, the entire delinquecy would be taken from the next paycheck X+Y days after due.

Think of the impact on attitudes.

But, God Bless Chester Bowles, anyway.

Awareness of tax impact is what Ms. Shlaes is getting at.

yuan sun's picture
yuan sun - Mar 14, 2009

a lot of the defense for Amity Shlaes comes from people who don't pick vegetables for a living. I challenge those anyone who says the poor don't pay enough taxes to pick lettuce for a day. Suddenly community health, public schools, food kitchens subsidized by taxing the rich don't seem so bad.

George B's picture
George B - Mar 14, 2009

It seems to me that the US constitution and federalism allows a way out of the problem of representation without taxation. The solution is to greatly reduce the size and scope of the federal government and shrink the taxes required to support that reduced size. A smaller federal government could be supported with a fairly low flat tax on income. Disagree and want to buy more government? There is no reason that people in cities or states couldn't vote for more government and more taxes for their local area. Citizens shouldn't have to fight over one size fits all government when our federal system potentially allows variety.

dj spellchecka's picture
dj spellchecka - Mar 14, 2009

I was staggered that Marketplace gave right-wing hack, Amity Shlaes airtime. If she's really worried about people not paying their taxes becoming somewhat detached from society, she should start with the fact that quite a few companies from the Fortune 500 pay no taxes..... the best way to get the great unwashed to start paying income taxes again would be to get the corporations that pay them to offer an actual income..... as for the poor not paying taxes...that's a fail...there's a tax on gas and utility bills, plus sales tax, property tax, local income tax...etc etc the earned income credit has been a major success...amity wouldn't want to touch that... before the crash, i read where 3 of of every 4 dollars in growth created during bush's "trickle down II" went to the top 1% of the population.... and the whole idea that tax rates effect behavior strike me as dubious...i didn't work harder when the rates at the bottom went from 15 to 10...i was already working hard...and i wouldn't quit working if my top marginal rates went up 3 points...i like working...

Brad Sallows's picture
Brad Sallows - Mar 14, 2009

>if you had a choice between making $100,000 a year and being in the 28% tax bracket, and making $25,000 a year and being in the 15% tax bracket, which would you choose?

That's not the problem, nor is the complete "going Galt" that some people sneer at.

I might find a way to earn just $90,000 and take the other 10% of my time as unpaid (and untaxable) leisure time. When the income tax base is skewed to depend heavily on the upper income earners, by how much do government revenues contract if more high income earners - particularly the >40hr/week folk - decide to live on less.

And do not assume those are jobs hours into which the "unemployed" can readily step. Most people who earn well stay employed.

That is the problem: a contraction in economic activity, not an outright abandonment.

Steve Sc's picture
Steve Sc - Mar 14, 2009

Wow! Where did this come from? Usually Marketplace is a left wing bastion. Representation without Taxation. That is awesome!!

James Williams's picture
James Williams - Mar 14, 2009

This is like an urban legend or internet hoax that won't stop. The facts are true but incomplete. Yes, high income families pay the bulk of the income tax, but that is the wrong measure. Shlaes mentions payroll taxes, which are highly regressive, but somehow those don't count. Not mentioned at all are sales and property taxes, both also regressive. The percentage of income paid in taxes to all levels of government is amazingly flat across all earnings quintiles. But we never hear that -- Marketplace should report on that.

If Shlaes had noted that only the dead 'pay' estate taxes, so all you freeloaders who haven't died are getting a free ride, this argument based only on income taxes would be exposed for the nonsense it is.

Brian W's picture
Brian W - Mar 14, 2009

I can't tell if the leftists posting here are dishonest or stupid - maybe it's both. All of this whining about "how much of the wealth does the top 1% have" is either a dodge or ignorance. We don't have a wealth tax in the US (at least not yet), we have an income tax. Got that? The top 1% of earners earn about 20% of total income and pay about 40% of income taxes. So yes, they pay far more than their "fair share."

Anne Lieberman's picture
Anne Lieberman - Mar 14, 2009

This thread presents a perfect illustration of the sheer hatred that spews from the Left. The commenters who stoop to name-calling and villification should really be ashamed. If you can't be civil, then be quiet. Let the people who want to talk about ideas and solutions do so in peace.

el doktor's picture
el doktor - Mar 14, 2009

Sure, I'll be *happy* to pay $600/mo while my neighbor claims that she's self-employed (she's not) to get $4500 back in April. And she gets food stamps, which she sells a majority of for booze/cigarettes. And she has an apartment to stay in, with her bills paid, and free cell phone (!) to call up her numerous baby-daddies to come on over and enjoy tax-payer funded roof-over-head, booze, cigs, whatever else. She can afford that $99/week 60" plasma TV RENTAL. Her kids are her meal ticket, she's said so herself. She is capable of working but she chooses not to as we, the tax-payer, provide FOR her. I ask you, is this right? Is this just? And if you answer in the positive, why don't you fund more of this lifestyle so I can save more of my income?

Pages