I recently got a chance to co-facilitate a workshop designed by Wealth for the Common Good (they’re organizing rich people to fight for fairer tax policy) about wealth, taxes, and inequality. It was an awesome workshop and gave me the chance to a) get very in touch with how totally ignorant I am about basically anything having to do with taxes (and learn tons preparing for the workshop) and b) agonize over some frustrating political questions that I still don’t know how to think about.
So here’s the thing: the entire U.S. tax system is set up to maintain and increase incredible, horrifying wealth inequality. Income tax is hardly progressive; work (income from a paycheck) is taxed at a much higher rate than wealth (income from investments); inheritance taxes are minimal and under attack from rich conservatives who believe that freedom means the freedom for really rich people to get really REALLY rich. Learning the details of all of this stuff is enraging and really illustrates how tax policy is a major contributing factor to all the forms of structural violence and inequality that we fight against.
So what’s the solution? Wealth for the Common Good has a campaign to make rich people pay more taxes, which seems like a good idea. I obviously don’t believe that anyone should be allowed to accumulate massive wealth even in the best of times; right now, in a recession that’s causing widespread poverty and cuts to already insufficient public resources everywhere (here in Philly, we just barely avoided passing a “Doomsday” budget that would have resulted in the layoff of 3,000 city employees and forced the closing of every single public library in the city), taxing the rich more seems like an important and obvious thing to fight for.
Except, the government already has lots of money, and is using it for war. And occupation. And policing and incarceration, and a long list of other things that are incredibly objectionable. Money for public services has been scarce since Reagan – not for lack of funds, but because cutting social spending (and privatizing everything) is a basic tenet of neoliberal capitalism. People aren’t fighting universal healthcare because the government can’t afford it; they’re fighting it because anything resembling a social safety net has been practically criminalized.
I get that taxation is essentially the only real mechanism for wealth redistribution that exists in our current structure. But I guess when I talk about wealth redistribution (the involuntary kind, not philanthropy), I’m more thinking about socialist revolution – not directing more money towards the federal government of an imperialist superpower.
The tax system does seem like an important (and often overlooked) target for economic justice struggles – I’m just having a hard time wrapping my head around the contradictions. Will the fight to get rich people to pay slightly more in taxes have a major effect on wealth disparity that will impact other things in positive ways? Are there other ways to accomplish the same goal of reducing wealth disparity that don’t also fund the military and police? How does a campaign around tax policy intersect with critiques of capitalism and imperialism?Â
Is there a simpler (or more complex) way of thinking about taxes and economic justice that is less fraught with political ambiguity?
how do we know who writes each post? just curious.
also, every other comment on every post is incredibly difficult to read.
i really like to keep up with this blog, so i just wanted to give a little comment.
i understand your larger questions. many people resent and have little
faith in the gov so even if folks did pay more, could we trust that their increase be
spent according to the principles they value? this led to questions about
ear-marks which i asked alot about when working with IPS. i guess they are
‘bad fiscal policy’ evidentally. But they make sense for many states- paying for higher education with x amount of money. I think the federal issue is that if we were to ear-mark certain monies, then what happens when a crisis arises (national disaster)? The feds want tax dollars to be fluid. But I do know that there were rumblings of paying for universal healthcare with income from top 1% tax increase. But i don’t know where that stands now. Seems good in theory – and to us – but isn’t practical for some reason. On a side note, Michael Moore purposefully mentions that the rich used to pay 90% of their income back in the 40s (i believe) in his new movie. That should be a nice jolt of reality for some people.
Hey Cox,
I know! Leah, one of my smart co-facilitators, did all this research about tax history and it totally blew my mind to learn that there was a moment so recently when mega-rich people had to pay 90% of their income in taxes! (although how wealth itself was taxed was probably a different story back then as well.) It makes me think about framing and what people are taught to think is just and fair. Messaging about fairness then must have been closer to something like that it is right for people who accumulate massive fortunes to pay huge chunks of it back to the (supposed) commons – and now Obama is being attacked for trying to raise rich people’s taxes some miniscule amount when they are already so incredibly low. (Also from doing this workshop I learned that anecdote about how Warren Buffett offered to give money to the charity of choice of any member of the Forbes rich people list who could prove that they paid a higher percentage in taxes than their secretary or assistant, and no one could.)
The fact that the tax system is now so clearly set up to encourage massively rich people to accumulate more and more wealth has all these messages embedded in it about individualism and seems to be saying that it is right that a few people hold most of the wealth and people who don’t own wealth be increasingly left behind and screwed. And it’s so overt. I mean, what other message can you glean from how taxation is structured?
i feel like i’m entering the issue from a different vantage point. one i haven’t been familiar with at all. There is a whole industry that works and gears up for tax season – offering free tax service (and products) to the low and moderate income who will most likely get refunds. Each year there are new credits, new policies and its all a bit mind boggling to me. In my new job I will be overseeing a tax preparation site; my predecessor went to work for this financial company where she flies around to IRS forums hoping non-profits (who work with poor people) will want to buy their product which is a pre-loadable card where the refund is automatic at the time of filing. It seems like this huge moment where a ton of different people are trying to compete – some more ethical than others – to be able to help a large % of people get money back and to potentially save. The ‘credit’ theory or philosophy doesn’t help, unfortunately, the ‘tax wealth fairly’ campaign. They aren’t necessarily seen as the same fight – not connecting – which is puzzling, and a bit of a stumbling block. It will be an interesting experience learning all the insides (and other side) of the tax conversation.
Hi Tyrone,
It seems to me that as long as you’ve got sympathetic rich people’s ear…you could ask them to double up on their time commitments to lobbying and ask them to lobby for 2 things at once:
-Higher taxes on the rich
-Higher funding for social services
I mean, these are people w/ money enough to blow on political influence, right? And they’re already listening to policies they should be influencing, right?
They’re not numerous, so their importance as from-below masses is severely constrained when it comes to having them participate in things that can only be done by from-below masses. I mean, they can do that, too, if you convince them or they believe it’s important…but they’re only so many people.
But hey, if you’re already spending some of YOUR free time on getting rich people to change 1 aspect of domestic policy (that you suspect IS possible to achieve via influential-type-folks doing what they do in our current sociopolitical system) by any means they feel good at (which will probably come out, for the most part, as being influential-type-folks). So tag on getting them to change a 2nd aspect of domestic policy (that I suspect ALSO is possible to achieve via influential-type-folks doing what they do in our current sociopolitical system).
Might work?
Hi Tyrone,
Thanks so much for this post. You articulated a lot of things I have been thinking about and wondering about. I wrote to Alison Goldberg recently and elaborated on what you said (the email I wrote is below). Thanks for creating this opening for dialogue.
Alison and Chuck did their tax workshop for us on May 13 this year, the anniversary of the bombing of the MOVE house in Philadelphia that killed 11 black people, including 5 children. So I was thinking about how taxes fund this kind of state violence against people of color.
I should also note that taxes pay for a lot of really important and necessary things, like education, healthcare, roads, etc. And of course there is a conversation to be had about how these things are organized according to and perpetuating racial and economic inequalities.
There is also part of the conversation to be had about tax resistance (including discussions of privilege, citizenship, etc.), dual power – community-based institutions that meet people’s needs without relying on oppressive power structures and institutions.
Anyway, thanks for your thoughts. There’s no easy answers on any of this.
Love,
Matt
**********
Hi Alison,
Thanks so much for reaching out. Sorry I’ve been bad at responding. Great to see you at MMMC also! I just made a $50 donation. I’m not making major gifts right now since I gave away a large chunk of my inheritance.
I also have some concerns about this campaign to increase the amount of taxes that wealthy people pay. Much of our tax money goes to subsidizing agribusiness, oil companies, and other corrupt, harmful corporations. And more than half of our tax dollars go to fund state violence (almost a trillion dollars a year!) – nuclear weapons, militarism, policing, and incarceration, and most of this state violence is directed at people of color and poor people. Also what does it mean to want to give more money to the US government – a colonial-settler entity of dubious legitimacy? INCITE! Women of Color against violence argues that the state is one of the primary organizers of violence against women of color. Personally if I had a huge fortune, I would want to give it to grassroots community organizations, not the government. I am echoing a lot of what Tyrone Boucher said on his blog: enoughenough.org.
I do think there are good things that come from huge wealth being reduced somewhat, but I also think that larger wealth redistribution to community-based organizations, reparations for slavery and colonialism, and challenging militarism, policing and imprisonment should be part of the conversation. And I think you all are doing some really important and necessary education about the tax system and economic injustice, which is why I’m supporting you. I know I learned a lot in the workshop that you and Chuck Collins did.
I hope you are well.
Best,
Matt