Patrick McSweeney


 

Justifying Low Taxes

Big spenders list endless "unmet needs" to justify tax hikes. Their foes must show how low taxes meet laudable goals, too, like spurring economic growth and protecting household income.


 

Proponents of higher taxes have fallen back to an old battle line. As this year’s campaign season begins, they have turned to the argument that Virginians are under taxed, compared to taxpayers in other states.

 

There are times when tax advocates have focused instead on an array of needs they contend will go unmet without a tax increase. That seemed to work with legislators in 2004, but it can’t be resorted to year after year. Voters aren’t apt to believe that unmet needs are overwhelming when their legislature has just enacted the largest tax increase in state history.

 

This doesn’t mean that the tax hike lobby will ever stop harping about what it labels as “unmet needs.” Such harping springs from a deeply imbedded value system that assumes only government can and should respond to social needs. These statists refuse to concede that some needs would still go unmet even if all income and wealth were grabbed through government taxation.

 

The talk about unmet needs is little more than background noise this year. Something more is required to persuade voters to support a tax increase. 

 

Some outspoken conservatives give the statists an opening by insisting that Virginians are already overtaxed. Whether true or not, this argument invites the tax lobby to roll out comparative analyses showing that Virginians pay far less than the average American taxpayer. Conservatives shoot back with their own analyses. And the average Virginian’s eyes glaze over.

 

In large part because of the size and timing of the 2004 state tax increase, the tax lobby isn’t pushing for another hike in general fund revenues. It has focused on a tax hike in 2006 for transportation even though the legislature recently appropriated $850 million for transportation out of the general fund surplus.

 

Voters soundly defeated two regional referenda in 2002 that would have increased the sales tax to fund transportation projects. In addition, public opinion surveys have demonstrated that the public is willing to accept user charges rather than taxes to finance new transportation projects.

 

It’s no wonder that the tax lobby is falling back to the comparative tax burden argument. That old tactic might work if conservatives respond as they usually do. It simply isn’t shrewd for conservatives to overstate the comparative tax burden felt by Virginians or even to allow the debate to focus on such comparisons. Conservatives do themselves a favor by emphasizing the virtue of keeping taxes low.

 

The statists see Virginia’s relatively low position among states as an undesirable condition that needs to be corrected. Conservatives view such a ranking as a good thing, but they need to do a much better job explaining why it’s a good thing.

 

It’s important, too, for conservatives to explain the corollary to the proposition that low taxes are good for the economy and a blessing to hard-pressed families. The corollary is that by keeping taxes low, we place a greater burden on people and private institutions to deal with these needs directly. Most social needs can be addressed more effectively through private action than by government programs.

 

In order to prevail in this ongoing tax debate, conservatives must spend less attention to statistics and comparative analyses and more to painting a clearer picture of their vision and how it can actually improve the lives of average Virginians. Ironically, conservatives are labeled right-wing ideologues, but haven’t effectively communicated their ideas. As Ronald Reagan recognized, every generation must be taught the lesson anew.

 

-- May 23, 2005

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contact Information

 

McSweeney & Crump

11 South Twelfth Street
Richmond, VA 23219
(804) 783-6802

pmcsweeney@

   mcbump.com