Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Progressive Taxation: Some Hidden Truths

By George Lakoff and Bruce Budner, AlterNet. Posted April 16, 2007.


Through unfair tax cuts paid by the wealthy and the cost of Iraq, our national wealth is being drained and the American infrastructure allowed to fall apart.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by George Lakoff Bruce Budner

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

At this time of year it seems there are only two things certain in life, taxes and anxiety about taxes. Instead of the perennial talk of a simplified tax form, how about a simplified understanding of the progressive values that underlie our tradition of progressive taxation?

Such an understanding won't move the tax deadline. But it might eliminate some of the anxiety. Understanding the hidden truths behind progressive taxation might also lead to more coherent -- and more just -- tax policies.

Progressive taxation -- taxing the wealthy at higher rates than the poor -- is a moral issue. Like many moral issues, it sparks heated debate. The debate is borne of conflicting worldviews, values, and understandings of values. But as we at the Rockridge Institute have written, when progressives understand the values and ideas that underlie their positions on issues, they can articulate arguments authentically and with greater persuasive force. These arguments will appeal to those whom we call biconceptuals -- the great majority of Americans whose worldviews borrow in various ways from both progressive and conservative values.

America's government has at least two fundamental functions, protection and empowerment. Protection includes the police, firefighters, emergency services, public health, the military, and so on. Empowerment includes the infrastructure needed for business and everyday life: roads, communications systems, water supplies, public education, the banking system for loans and economic stability, the SEC for the stock market, the courts for enforcing contracts, air traffic control, support for basic science, our national parks and public buildings, and more. We are usually aware of protection. But the empowerment infrastructure, provided by taxes, is usually taken for granted, hidden, or ignored. Yet it is absolutely crucial, a fundamental truth about America and why America provides opportunity.

This is a basic truth. That is what framing should be about: revealing truths and allowing us to reason using them.

Taxes are part of our common wealth, what we all share. Protection and empowerment serve the common good. Because of our common wealth, we are all protected and America's empowering infrastructure is available to all. That is a fundamental America value: the common wealth should serve the common good. It benefits everyone.

Citizens are financially responsible to maintain this common wealth. If we shirked this responsibility, we could not maintain our roads, fund our schools, protect ourselves from military threats, enforce our laws, and so on. Equally importantly, we could not create prosperity for ourselves, because we would have no protection of our intellectual property, no oversight of our markets, no means to enforce our contracts, no way to educate most of our children.

Several main progressive values support the idea of progressive taxation. One is the belief that the common wealth should be used for the common good. Another is responsibility, the responsibility that citizens have to pay for the benefits we receive from our common wealth. And still another is fairness. These values intertwine on the question of progressive taxation.

Few people dispute this responsibility at some level. Disagreements generally arise over the amount and the relative apportionment of the responsibility. Differing concepts of fairness drive this debate. While many progressives say it is only fair that those who earn more pay a higher percentage of their earnings as taxes compared to those who have difficulty making ends meet, conservatives respond by asserting that it is unfair to "punish" the financially successful by making them pay more.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: progressive taxation

George Lakoff is the author of Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate' (Chelsea Green). He is Professor of Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley and a Senior Fellow of the Rockridge Institute.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
empower where?
Posted by: edith on Apr 16, 2007 1:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the idea of the common wealth seems logical but the authors duck the poltical question of what level of govt should shared wealth be spent. The Federal govt has grown too big; state and local gvts often can duck asking their citizens to contribute to the needs of the poor or even the protection of citizens by claiming the "feds" should deal with the problem. In the American system, we have a federal govt meaning the states and locals are the primary service providers withthe feds offering major constitutional services like the military, the postal service, customs and the patent office. In reality, the feds are involved in everything because of dirty log rolling in DC engaged in by the scumbag leaders of both parties.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: empower where? Posted by: EncinoM
Get used to it!
Posted by: jlohman on Apr 16, 2007 3:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As long as the wealth fund the campaigns, that's the way it is going to be. Only public funding of campaigns (at $10 per taxpayer per year) will reverse the inequality.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Get used to it! Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Get used to it! Posted by: willymack
» RE: Get used to it! Posted by: willymack
» RE: Get used to it! Posted by: Rungle
» RE: Value added Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Value added Posted by: Rungle
» RE: Value added Posted by: Lincoln fan
» hey Posted by: Iconoclast421
He makes a gross assumption upon which he bases his conclusion!
Posted by: Prophit on Apr 16, 2007 3:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He assumes the only way to pay for all of those items he lists which are doggone good, is through taxation. There are other options that keep the wealth here and not give into the hands of private bankers under the Federal Reserve. They are not doing it for public service only, they are doing it because of the incredible profits they are making, so why can't we take control back and make those profits ourselves and then use the funds to pay for the various items listed???? If it can work for the private bankers why can't it work for us. After all, it is in the Constitution that we are suppose to retain control of our monetary system. What we have right now is actually in violation of our own Constitution. How come somebody isn't discussing that fact?

Our problem isn't a lack of progressive tax, its a lack of public (government) control of its currency and wealth. Its been given up to the Federal reserve owned by private interests and not under public domain.

Remember it was Lincoln who said ".... I have two enemies, the southern army before me and the bankers behind me and I fear the latter more"! He then proceeded to take back control of our currency from those private interest bankers.

We pay interest on fiat currency and yet do not get paid any interest from the banks for the deposits of taxes collected. How is that possible? Our tax checks do not go to the IRS for deposit even though your envelope says IRS, rather it goes directly to the bankers to pay down the debt, so they avoid paying us any interest on our funds for even a short period of time.

To expect them to care about us is ludicrous, they will care about their shareholders and no one else. We need to take control of our banking, currency, and financial wellbeing back from the banking institutions and we won't have this problem with the tax structure. It will solve itself. There are other issues to be addressed as well.

The public owns resources such as public lands which have natural resources on them and our elected and paid for officials simply give those resources to private interests and nothing comes back to the people in the way of revenues, which could serve as a replacement for taxation or at least a healthy offset, then people could keep their earnings, use it to invest or spend and thus aid in the growth of the economy rather than taxing us to death.

Why don't progressive think tanks discuss these innovative possibilities rather than supporting the fact that working Americans work 5 months out of every year for the tax man and that is labor without pay..... that is called slavery.... working for the state!

There has to be a better way. Brainstorming and questioning the basic premises of the issue may result in ideas outside the box. Is there no one creative working there?

Note for example, that Solomon brothers is one of the owners of the Federal Reserve, correct??? Then note who was just appointed Sec of the Treasury? The CEO of Solomon brothers... what is a private corporation doing running our treasury? that is a blatant conflict of interest. Like lincoln, we should be printing our own currency and controlling our own financial well being. Of course, luckily Lincoln got shot and immediately the currency went back to the private bankers. He was right to fear them more.

The level of commitment will be dependant on the special interests you have. That is why we are in trouble and our wealth is disappearing into the pockets of those who control its very essence.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» We do print our own money. Posted by: Lincoln fan
As long as corporations are considered "persons"
Posted by: Ian MacLeod on Apr 16, 2007 5:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and as long as they have their claws in politicians and politics, they will find a way to opt out or as close to it as they can get and stick US with the bills. I can remember one year when one of the Rockefellers paid a whole $600 in income tax. I've never made much, and I've never paid so little.

Ian

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fair Taxation
Posted by: Uncle Crabby on Apr 16, 2007 6:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The single point that will return taxation to "fair"? We should have only one line on the tax return to declare yearly income.

How much money came in this year? --->

Imagine bringing the investor class into the same crushing tax structure as those of us who get our income reported on W2's.

Why are capital gains and dividends taxed at far less than what most Americans pay out for income they actually WORK FOR ?!?!?!?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Fair Taxation Posted by: Lincoln fan
» The answer is... Posted by: edith
» RE: Sorry. My mistake. Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: The CORRECT answer is... Posted by: Uncle Crabby
» RE: The CORRECT answer is... Posted by: Lincoln fan
Freedomtofascism.com
Posted by: mite on Apr 16, 2007 6:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On this day celebrated by the private bankers for 93 years (1913) tax day, let us stop denying the truth.

There is no law that requires the people in these 50 states who are citizens to pay a income tax on their labor-wages.

Watch the above movie. On google also.

Or let these bankers keep taking our childrens lives and your money.

www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers
www.givemeliberty.org
search on google: theft-by-deception

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Freedomtofascism.com Posted by: EncinoM
» what is your deal Posted by: Iconoclast421
» RE: what is your deal Posted by: EncinoM
Progressive taxation as a backup system
Posted by: ScottP on Apr 16, 2007 8:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our system as a whole has many flaws that allow the rich and powerful to steal like bandits. For example, the legal system is completely biased towards those with expensive lawyers, and so when you or I get reemed by a big business, we have to eat the loss, since we have no chance at all of making them pay in court. Economies of scale make it easy for them to beat down competition. Even worse, since there is no effective anti-trust enforcement any more, it's back to the system of 100 years ago, where any big business can target a market, go in and lose money until the local businesses go bankrupt, and then crank up prices and rake in profits. CEO pay is yet another example of legalized robbery.

And so progressive taxation provides the last bandage to try to keep the money in the system rather than letting it bleed out to the robber barons, who will waste it on more mansions and bribes to politicians to allow them to clearcut more forests.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Still a broken approach (IMHO)
Posted by: kiatoa on Apr 16, 2007 9:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the author but I think there is a big idea missing from many tax discussions. If you tax something you will (loosely speaking) get less of it because you have made the price of that thing higher. Isn't human effort (physical and mental) the engine that drives the economy? If so then taxing income (generally a function of effort) is the last thing you want to do. Still, as pointed out by the author, taxes are necessary. How about taxing things that do not contain any human effort? Start with land and natural resources. As much as possible tax these things at the root source. The net effect would be efficient usage of natural resources and a sharing of the natural wealth therein AND more people working. Google for "Henry George" for a deeper analysis of this idea. Eliminate poverty, fight for the one tax solution :-)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Our tax forms hide the truth
Posted by: eddie torres on Apr 16, 2007 9:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Excellent analysis by Lakoff: tax forms "...make it look like the empowering infrastructure was just put there by magic and that the government is taking money out of your pocket."

Republicans have maximised the propaganda value of this "government is taking money out of your pocket" grievance into the Free Market Mantra that inspires millions of US citizens to vote against their own economic best interest.

Ironically, if you are a US citizen and you have a complicated financial profile (over $50,000), you hire a professional accountant to take care of your tax forms. They know all the rules and loopholes.

But if you have a simple financial profile (under $50,000), you fill out your own tax forms - and the forms assume you know what's in your own economic best interest.

If the best you could accomplish in life is a US high school diploma, then you absolutely have no idea what's in your own economic best interest.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wait!
Posted by: chaoslegs on Apr 16, 2007 9:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author wrote:

Ordinary people just drive on the highways; corporations send fleets of trucks. Ordinary people may get a bank loan for their mortgage; corporations borrow money to buy whole companies. Ordinary people rarely use the courts; most of the courts are used for corporate law and contract disputes. Corporations and their investors -- those who have accumulated enough money beyond basic needs so they can invest -- make much more use, compound use, of the empowering infrastructure provided by everybody's tax money.

But isn't it true that corporations pay less and less of the overall tax burden??

On another point, here in Minnesota the Republicans are screaming that a proposed new tax category will make MN the state with the highest state income tax. These are the same Republicans that have touted how MN is gone down in our tax rankings as a good thing, while conviently forgetting that we have lost ground in other measures related to the quality of life.

Fortunately we have an outstanding Republican that was the Finance Commissioner under Arne Carlson (moderate Republican Governor) who talks about taxes and how both parties don't use honest language. You can read his columns here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oh No!!!
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Apr 16, 2007 10:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now that whack job will have to come up with another pet issue.. as alternet has now addressed ALL of the ones he bemoans over and over that they never even talk about.

Oh well, emmanuel_Goldstein_is_a_fake_leftie_nutjob... better luck next rant.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Oh No!!! Posted by: Lincoln fan
The tax collector has always been an enemy; read the Bible.
Posted by: Sojourner on Apr 16, 2007 11:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And that is a whole lot easier to understand than the true but complicated notion of the common wealth.

In addition, legislators always want more money to spend. So the current common wealth federal annual budget is what, three trillion per annum now? Is it enough? No way.

Recall the experience of native Americans who had the learn the hard way that the government social worker who said, "We are working for you," was a fool. It was easier to deal with the conniving tradesman, because you knew from the get-go he wouldn't give you what your produce was worth.

So the author's lyrical pean for common wealth is correct. It just keeps getting lost in the bureaucracy's bumblings. Civil servants these days are the last to think of themselves as "servants."

The Bush tax cuts are not responsible conservatism, from whom we learn of government's incredible waste. No responsible justification exists for tax cuts during war time. Bush is a liar, a cheat, and a thief. That others in his class, the ruling class, approve of him for reasons of self-interest is no surprise. But that has nothing to do with notions of "fair" taxation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Fiat U , W! Posted by: edith
Tax Deadline Sure Is Moving Towards Hitler's Birthday
Posted by: hole11 on Apr 16, 2007 2:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a coincidence.

This author should admit his wages are a direct result from taxes going to his university. He should also admit if he has any municipal bonds. Then he should take all his words like "progressive" and replace with socialist.

Common wealth and Common good? They clearly are not the same thing. Can Lakoff explain why we need to fund oppression and not have freedom to be left alone or to remain private citizens?

Yeah, I could teach this professor a thing or two about linguistics in law. Why do they hide behind the word "must" professor?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Progressive tax moral?
Posted by: Swedish liberal on Apr 16, 2007 2:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Progressive tax, moral? I beg to disagree. The morality if existing is in the view of the political majority that raises or lowers taxes. Talking about morality is a very slippery slope indeed. Is homosexuality immoral? Is abortion immoral? Is abstaining from sex before marriage moral?

As a person I am opposed moral legislation most often it is based on ideological and/religious values. For me taxation is means not a goal in it self. Raising or lower taxes is only a function for the efficiency of the economy and the amount of revenue. If lowering taxes for the “wealthy” increases the effectively of the economy and raises the overall revenue government income it a good thing. As a matter of fact this is exactly what happened with George W Bush tax cuts for the “rich”, the revenue increased notwithstanding the rise in underlying growth. The tax cuts are one of the few good things GWB has done.

At the same time I do not approve of tax increases that lead to lowering of growth, inefficiency in the economy and lowering of revenue, the so called Laffer effect. One of the few countries in the world were the Laffer effect is a fact is Sweden. The gigantic increase, 50 % overnight, in taxes in the 70s lead to decreases in revenue and inefficiencies in the economy as well as in the Public sector. Sweden has gradually seen a decline both as regards to one of the world’s wealthiest countries as in its decline of its welfare system. This would not have been the case had Sweden chosen a different approach as advocated by us social liberals. Sweden would then still be the among the 4 wealthiest nations and would have had as we once did the no 1 welfare system. For me high tax revenue to pay for welfare is more important than mitigating income equality, the price is not worth it.

As a parenthesis Sweden has the least difference between the lowest 10 % income earners and the highest 10 % income earners in the world. But is extremely contradictory that the value gap between these groups is very much higher than in the US, low income earners have no understanding for the income rises among the top 10 % and vice versa, high income earners have no understanding and tolerance for income equality and income distribution. In the US it is the opposite. The rich accepts income distribution i.e progressive taxation and the poor understand the need for income inequality.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Progressive tax moral? Posted by: CatDad
» RE: Progressive tax moral? Posted by: Swedish liberal
Don't get fooled by the tax form pretending to be sympathetic to married couples.
Posted by: maxpayne on Apr 16, 2007 6:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At first glance it may look like married couples have more to benefit but the truth is, whatever advantages in money married couples have over singles in getting tax refunds is nothing compared to the higher costs of living, massive budget cuts against the working class due to war and tax breaks for the wealthy elite, etc ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Progressive Taxation: Some Hidden Truths
Posted by: willful on May 12, 2007 7:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Progressive Taxation: Some Hidden Truthspants - golden showers copyright this article more tracked mail order sex toys - selection of united states sexy lingerie of sex toys celebrity fashion - positive ratings drew barrymore celebrity pictures nicole kidman GEFFEDEVS766GERTT9009ED chubby stories - natural tits mature women pictures of with big tits drunk girls passed out - public nudity spring break party girls college girls ethnic gay men - the internet privacy policy copyright united states groupsex - getting fucked sex stories these movies sucking cock fat gay bears - gay daddies and their admirers sex stories bear magazine

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]