[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 74 (Thursday, May 23, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5620-S5621]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     WHY DO WE CALL TAXES A BURDEN

 Mr. PELL. Mr. President, there is a commonly held belief 
abroad in the land that all taxes are inherently burdensome. This is 
implicit in an event recently noted, known as ``Tax Freedom Day.'' I 
was moved to ponder this matter after reading an article in The 
Washington Post, entitled ``Why Do We Call Taxes a Burden'?'' by 
Professor Rashi Fein. Professor Fein makes the point, most excellently, 
that our language shapes our actions.
  A ``burden'' is by definition oppressive. Our facile use of the term 
in connection with our taxes thereby encourages us to act to ease those 
taxes. By such thinking, in fashioning a budget resolution, all manner 
of actions become justified. Let us jettison support for Medicare, 
Medicaid, Social Security, hiring of police officers, heating 
assistance to the poor, protection of our environment, education loans, 
United States humanitarian operations, civilian and military retirement 
pensions, national defense, prosecution of drug smugglers, and Amtrak. 
Thus, so this form of reasoning goes, will our ``burden'' be lifted. 
Yet who among us would not assert that some, if not all of the 
aforementioned programs are worthy in motive and intent, albeit perhaps 
not flawless in execution?
  Professor Fein posits that the weighing of appropriate tax and 
expenditure policies is difficult when our language encourages us to 
think of our taxes as burdens not connected to the benefits we derive 
from them. Police protection, clean air and water, an educated 
populace, and a strong national defense benefit each and every one of 
us. Moreover, Federal entitlements--benefits citizens are entitled to 
collect if they meet certain demographic or income definitions--reach 
49 percent of U.S. households, including 39 percent of families with 
children and 98 percent of the elderly.
  As a moral proposition, we must be careful of our words, for our 
words become our actions. And, as the adage goes, actions become 
character, and our character becomes our destiny. In considering 
amendments to the budget resolution, let us not join in vying to reduce 
our tax ``burden'' lest our destiny become a society ``less organized 
and less civilized.''
  Mr. President, I ask that the article entitled ``Why Do We Call Taxes 
a Burden'?'' be printed in the Record.
  The article follows.

               [From the Washington, Post, May 17, 1996]

                    Why do we Call Taxes a `Burden'?

                            (By Rashi Fein)

       I learn a lot watching C-SPAN. The other night, one of 
     Washington's leading economists was asked about using the tax 
     system to help reduce environmental damage. The response? It 
     certainly would be difficult, because it would increase the 
     ``tax burden.''
       ``Tax burden'' is a phrase with which we are all so 
     familiar that we don't stop to think what it means--nor what 
     it implies. At first blush it seems value-free. But plainly a 
     ``burden'' is something to be lifted. We don't refer to the 
     monies we spend on movies, popcorn, milk or shoes as 
     ``burdens.'' We refer to them--and think of them--as 
     expenditures, some (movies and popcorn) optional, others 
     (food, shoes) necessary. We don't speak of our ``consumption 
     burden.'' Why, then, a ``tax burden''?
       Is it that our tax payments are not optional but our food 
     expenditures are? That can't be it: We have to buy food. We 
     can choose between steak and hamburger (or yogurt and tofu), 
     but we can't choose between eating and starving. Indeed, the 
     penalty for not eating far exceeds the penalty for nonpayment 
     of taxes. yet we do not speak of the ``food burden.''
       More likely, we think of taxes as a burden because we're 
     not quite certain what it is we're buying when we pay them. 
     We miss, somehow, the connection between our tax dollars and 
     the fire protection, the highways, the security against 
     foreign powers and the biomedical research that our dollars 
     buy. The problem is that few of the benefits we derive can be 
     seen, touched or smelled. Moreover, the benefits we derive 
     from government expenditures most often accrue to everyone; 
     they do not come packaged in discrete units--this box of 
     defense for me, this piece of highway for you.
       And many of us assume that we'd continue to get whatever it 
     is we're getting from government even if we didn't pay our 
     taxes. Without spending our dollars, we'd have no milk on our 
     tables, but we can't really imagine that schools and roads 
     would disappear if you and I didn't buy them with our tax 
     dollars. Clearly, government doesn't determine how many 
     potholes to fill only after it deposits our tax dollars. If I 
     don't buy that book, that restaurant meal, that aspirin--or 
     if I cheat on my taxes--does government really subtract from 
     the pothole-fixing budget or the salaries of judges? That's a 
     tough connection to make--but without that connection, my 
     taxes come to seem irrelevant, hence unnecessary, hence a 
     ``burden.''
       Of course, no government program would suffer if you or I 
     consumed less (and thus paid less in sales tax) or if I 
     cheated on my return (and thus paid less in income tax). But 
     if you and I both underpaid, everyone else would have to pay 
     more. And it surely stretches language beyond acceptable 
     usage to call not taking advantage of one's neighbors a 
     ``burden.''
       Burdens are by definition oppressive, and our facile use of 
     the term in connection with our taxes thereby encourages us 
     to do everything we can (within the law) to ease them. 
     Cheating on our taxes comes to seem acceptable (at least 
     understandable), even though tax evasion is precisely 
     analogous to shoplifting. If we take fire protection, 
     guarantees on educational loans, clean air and water but fail 
     to pay for them, we are stealing.
       Our language shapes our attitudes. To weigh appropriate tax 
     and expenditure policies in difficult when our language 
     encourages us to think of our taxes as burdens not connected 
     to the benefits we derive from them.
       Some weeks ago, I received a brochure encouraging me to 
     open an IRA. In that brochure, a 1040 tax return was labeled 
     ``pain,'' while the application for an IRA was labeled ``pain 
     killer.'' By implication, taxes (like pain) are to be 
     avoided. By implication, I can continue to enjoy the benefits 
     of government expenditures without paying for them.

[[Page S5621]]

       We can debate ``value for money,'' the wisdom of particular 
     government policies, programs and expenditures. We can argue 
     as to whether we're spending too much here, not enough there. 
     But that debate is distorted if we enter it with the view 
     that any government expenditure--which means my tax dollar--
     is inherently burdensome.
       I feel as I do because I remember what Justice Holmes wrote 
     in 1904: ``Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society'' 
     and what Franklin Delano Roosevelt said in 1936, ``Taxes, 
     after all, are the dues that we pay for the privileges of 
     membership in an organized society.''
       Now, at century's end, our economists tell us taxes are a 
     burden, and our pension funds tell us taxes are a pain. Is it 
     any wonder that our leaders vie to reduce the burden and the 
     pain, even if in so doing our society becomes somewhat less 
     organized and less civilized? 

                          ____________________