TAXES – yay or nay

Some time ago, I was invited to make a presentation before a committee which was part of the White House Conference on Families , convened in Washington, D C during the Carter administration in December of 1979. The conference was purposed to examine the status of families and the social pressures that impacted them. The various committees looked at specific issues that related to the overall agenda and were usually chaired by a well known expert in the field.

The committee I was asked to appear before was chaired by Robert Rice, a renowned author and Executive Vice President of Family Service America.  The topic to be addressed was family policy, or the lack thereof. Rice’s premise to which I  agreed, was  that the United states did not, in fact, have a national policy on families.

There are many facets which such a policy would have to address and being a Regional Consultant for the Children’s Bureau, and being on the front lines of implementing rules, regulations and policy regarding children mostly, and by association, families, the Committee thought a discussion with me might be of some  value. Initially, I was told, I would have about eight minutes to lay out the argument for such a policy. What it turned out to be was almost an hour. There were several aspects that I felt needed a look but one of the most impactful was the topic of taxes. While not purposing to be an expert on tax law or policy, the topic arose when the subject of health care and child care entered the discussion. Even that far back, I raised the question as to why the United States was the only country in the industrialized western world that did not have universal health care. That spurred a serious discussion about not only health care but the role of taxes in general. It was clear that the panel agreed that the need for tax reform should be one major outcome of the Conference.

Fast forward a few decades and, while some things had changed on the children and family policy scene, the fact remains we to date still do not have a national policy on children or on families. I raised that issue on my social media site and included the concept of  universal health care , free child care and free education, which actually are policies in many countries. I made the comment in the context of the U S being the richest country in the world  and still, many countries surpass us in national  domestic policy.

More than one of the several replies took exception to the idea of universal anything, complaining that these countries paid for it all with high taxes. While that is partially true, one has to ask, why do so many see that as a problem.

The fact is that it is true.  These and other services are provided in those countries and paid for by a higher level of taxation, though often  the costs are paid for in combination with government and corporate contributions.

The question remains, why is this a problem. As noted earlier, we are the wealthiest nation in the world and yet, twenty per cent of our children live in poverty and are food insufficient. In many states, upward of fourteen thousand children are in the foster care system or the juvenile justice system and thousands of young people all over are living on the streets. For so many, adequate health care is out of reach, certain health care subsidies  notwithstanding and as for education, clearly the powers that be would like to see particularly higher education available only to those who can afford it.

The role and purpose of government, among other tasks, is to be responsive to the needs of its people and to, as per the Preamble to our own Constitution, “ to promote the well being of the people and secure the blessings of liberty “ and one would logically deduct that the providing of health care and education would be high on the list of the “ blessings of liberty “. 

And in order to do that, there must be resources, and specifically financial resources sufficient to the task and for government, that means taxes, both corporate and individual. The very idea of paying scant or no taxes defeats the concept of government and the revenue to run it and while higher taxes may be uncomfortable for some or many, the eventual benefits paid down the road should be seen as well worth it. Call it an investment in the future.

So, given the choice, a reasonable and well planned , graduated tax, be it income, corporate or unearned, would seem to be far more valuable to a democracy than lean taxes driving the government in to a constant state of debt beyond its means, such as what we are currently experiencing.