To the Editor:
As April 15 approaches (the nation’s traditional filing deadline), the two remaining Democratic presidential contenders and their supporters are advocating higher taxes, either in the form of a new wealth tax or simply by raising the marginal rates of our current income tax.
But a common refrain among those who disagree is: “Hey, hypocrites, if you truly believe this, dip into your own pockets rather than impose a burden on the rest of us.”
This complaint has superficial appeal. We expect honest people to live by their words — to do that which they would have others do: Environmentalists should drive as little as possible, and only in high-mileage cars; animal rights advocates should embrace vegetarianism; and the religious orthodox should attend services in their respective houses of worship.
However, the argument that supporters of tax increases should simply donate to the government fundamentally misunderstands what it means to urge higher taxes. Tax-increase advocates do not campaign for patriotic philanthropy. That’s because funding government via charitable contributions is a bad idea: It would reward free riders; distribute the burdens of government primarily among those who are altruistic and generous; and likely come at the expense of genuine charitable institutions, which have their own, nongovernmental roles to play in our national welfare.
Instead, the government should be funded in a manner mutually agreed upon by Congress and taxpayers, based on principles of fairness and ability to pay. Taxes are a collective obligation and their payment a civic duty.
As a general matter, voters harbor mixed emotions regarding taxes. On the one hand, no one likes being taxed, and those who especially loathe it are more inclined to support political candidates who assure the public that Congress need not raise taxes or, better yet, can even cut them. On the other hand, these very same voters often value the governmental services that taxes provide —national defense, Medicare, income security, national parks, and interstate highways. They also express sincere misgivings that the federal government, even during highly prosperous times, is adding a trillion dollars per year to the national deficit.
So among the possible answers to the question “Should tax-increase advocates make voluntary contributions to the government?” is the following retort: If I want the government to have a tiny revenue increment, then I’ll make a charitable contribution to it. But if I want it to have a meaningful revenue increment that will enable it to provide useful services (without unduly increasing the national debt and while apportioning sacrifice equitably), then tax increases are the only manner by which this objective can be achieved.
By design, taxes are a shared enterprise, not the undertaking of a single person. We cannot build bridges, mount an army, or fight pandemic outbreaks by ourselves. The same is true of taxpaying: A functioning society requires that everyone be a team member, obligated to participate in its duties and responsibilities.
As tax day approaches, it’s time once again to recognize our common bonds and commitment to keep our nation fiscally solvent and whole. For love of country, nothing could be more important.
Richard L. Schmalbeck
Jay A. Soled
April 2, 2020
Richard L. Schmalbeck is the Simpson Thacher and Bartlett Professor of Law at Duke Law School. Jay A. Soled is a professor at Rutgers Business School and directs its Masters of Taxation Program. On several occasions, both authors have testified before Congress on various tax policy issues.