The Terminology of Taxation
Democrats have a tough time selling "revenue increases" to the public

Every political movement has its rhetorical strengths and weaknesses. The Right can wax poetic about liberty and freedom, the Left about the nobility of the poor and downtrodden.

Nowhere do these differences come across more starkly than on the subject of taxation.

(Note: This is not a column about the debt-ceiling negotiations. I would have put this warning up top, but I feared that immediately seeing the phrase "debt-ceiling negotiations" would cause many readers to face-plant into their breakfast tables or computer screens.)

Ask almost any Republican politician, from lobster-roll-eating northeastern "RINOs" (Republicans in name only) to flinty, leather-skinned westerners with calluses on their trigger fingers, to explain why high taxes are bad, and they'll do a pretty good job of selling it.

Ask almost any Democrat to explain why high taxes are bad, and you will get hit with the velvet fog, minus the velvet. First they'll explain that while they do favor "increasing revenues," they don't favor higher taxes if by "high taxes" you mean taxes that are "too high." They favor "smart" tax rates that are "targeted" (i.e., "higher"). Then they'll explain that they don't want to raise your taxes; they want to raise taxes on your boss, your employer, and the companies that sell you gas, cars, cigarettes, food, clothes, electricity, and various "unnecessary" surgical procedures. They leave out that those taxes get passed on to you.

Then, they'll rush to safer territory: all of the wonderful things government does. Government, don't you know, is just the word we use for all the things we do together. So every time you cut a check to the IRS, an angel gets its wings.

Not all of those arguments are necessarily wrong. My point is that there's no poetry to them. The sizzle doesn't sell the steak.

Barack Obama has tried to explain that higher taxes are "neighborly." That "spreading the wealth around" is noble. That taxation is a vital application of the biblical requirement to be our "brother's keeper" (which the Bible doesn't actually require).

George Lakoff, a prominent linguistic consultant to Democrats, has tried a different tack. He says that "taxes are what you pay to be an American. . . . Taxes are your dues-- you pay your dues to be an American."

For all the money Lakoff gets for being original, it's funny how he's just plagiarizing FDR, who said, "Taxes, after all, are dues that we pay for the privileges of membership in an organized society."

Some ideas won't die, however. So there was Faiz Shakir, editor-in-chief of, expanding on this idea on C-SPAN the other day.

"We should change our conception of what taxes mean," Shakir sermonized. "Most people who join country clubs, or gyms, or other exclusive entities in America, feel . . . proud to pay that monthly due, because they want to be part of that special privileged community in which they receive wonderful resources and benefits." Americans "should feel that same kind of awe and respect for paying taxes . . . we shouldn't have an aversion to paying some amount of taxes."

Give him points for trying. But let's take out our red pens.

First, one senses that when Shakir says "some amount" he means "any amount." As for this idea that people should feel the same "awe and respect for paying taxes" as they do when they belong to a gym, I've got to ask: What gym does this guy go to?

The fundamental problem with marketing taxes as dues or fees is, well, they're not dues or fees. Dues are voluntary. Fees can be withheld for bad service, and whatever "awe and respect" one feels comes not from paying the fee but from getting good value for it.

Moreover, most "exclusive entities" don't charge wildly divergent rates to different customers based on their incomes. In fact, vast swaths of Americans don't pay the "dues" (income taxes) at all. They do pay the "fees" (sales and payroll taxes), but they get back more from government than they pay into it. And don't get me started on how illegal immigration fits this country-club metaphor.

The "exclusive entity" analogy actually supports not higher and more progressive income taxes, but a flat tax. Everybody pays X percent of their income. Everyone has the same share of skin in the game.

In fairness, Republicans successfully sell their anti-tax message not because they have better orators or buy craftier linguists, but because taxpayers don't feel they're getting a lot of value for their dollars, and most suspect they could feel the same "awe and respect" for half the price.

Jonah Goldberg is a visiting fellow at AEI.

Also Visit
AEIdeas Blog The American Magazine
About the Author




    A bestselling author and columnist, Jonah Goldberg's nationally syndicated column appears regularly in scores of newspapers across the United States. He is also a columnist for the Los Angeles Times, a member of the board of contributors to USA Today, a contributor to Fox News, a contributing editor to National Review, and the founding editor of National Review Online. He was named by the Atlantic magazine as one of the top 50 political commentators in America. In 2011 he was named the Robert J. Novak Journalist of the Year at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). He has written on politics, media, and culture for a wide variety of publications and has appeared on numerous television and radio programs. Prior to joining National Review, he was a founding producer for Think Tank with Ben Wattenberg on PBS and wrote and produced several other PBS documentaries. He is the recipient of the prestigious Lowell Thomas Award. He is the author of two New York Times bestsellers, The Tyranny of Clichés (Sentinel HC, 2012) and Liberal Fascism (Doubleday, 2008).  At AEI, Mr. Goldberg writes about political and cultural issues for and the Enterprise Blog.

    Follow Jonah Goldberg on Twitter.

  • Phone: 202-862-7165

What's new on AEI

image Getting it right: US national security policy and al Qaeda since 2011
image Net neutrality rundown: What the NPRM means for you
image The Schuette decision
image Snatching failure from victory in Afghanistan
AEI on Facebook
Events Calendar
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
Wednesday, April 23, 2014 | 12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.
Graduation day: How dads’ involvement impacts higher education success

Join a diverse group of panelists — including sociologists, education experts, and students — for a discussion of how public policy and culture can help families lay a firmer foundation for their children’s educational success, and of how the effects of paternal involvement vary by socioeconomic background.

Thursday, April 24, 2014 | 12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.
Getting it right: A better strategy to defeat al Qaeda

This event will coincide with the release of a new report by AEI’s Mary Habeck, which analyzes why current national security policy is failing to stop the advancement of al Qaeda and its affiliates and what the US can do to develop a successful strategy to defeat this enemy.

Event Registration is Closed
Friday, April 25, 2014 | 9:15 a.m. – 1:15 p.m.
Obamacare’s rocky start and uncertain future

During this event, experts with many different views on the ACA will offer their predictions for the future.   

Event Registration is Closed
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.