Reframing taxes

For two decades, conservatives have successfully cemented in the public discourse that taxes are a burden. In 2001, conservatives in Congress successfully pushed through tax cuts that most benefited high-income taxpayers. Proponents called it the ‘tax relief bill’ – a phrase so ubiquitous that reporters and headline writers used it in news stories – without quotes – stating it as fact, even though the legislation provided little to no relief for most low- and middle-income taxpayers.

What does ‘relief’ imply? That a burden must be lifted. Conservatives have long vilified taxes as something that punishes self-made millionaires and billionaires – those disciplined and hard-working people who pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and earned their way. The implication is that the poor are lazy and therefore undeserving. According to this view, taxing the wealthy and using the money to help those in need is ‘wealth redistribution’ that borders on the dreaded ‘S’ word, ‘socialism’.

The word ‘tax’, then, carries heavy baggage. Repeating it – even when trying to refute an anti-tax argument – serves only to reinforce that baggage. When people hear the name of Warren’s bill or Biden’s proposal for paying for a massive investment in the nation’s infrastructure, the word that likely will stick in their minds is ‘tax’.

It doesn’t matter whether Warren and Biden subsequently explain that their proposals will ensure that the wealthy pay their fair share, narrow the racial wealth gap and level the playing field. Without a different starting point, they are doing the equivalent of building a sleek and powerful ship, then steering it straight into a hurricane. Even if the ship survives the storm, it will be damaged.

This is despite the nationwide popularity among voters of requiring the wealthy to pay their fair share. But congressional lawmakers – the ones who will be deciding on these proposals – rely on the anti-tax conservatives and corporations to help fund their campaigns. They are the ones who need to be convinced otherwise.

Strategic communications strategist Anat Shenker-Osorio points out in ‘Don’t Buy It: The Trouble with Talking Nonsense about the Economy’ that “[w]hen we take a ‘tax the rich’ messaging approach to trying to rectify our deep and damaging inequality, we succeed at one thing for certain. We get people to hate paying taxes even more.”

So, what else can a tax be called? Reframing taxes as an investment in public services that we all use or benefit from – such as roads and bridges, water and sewer systems – would be one approach. Merely by talking about infrastructure, Biden is launching a long-overdue national conversation about the public benefits for which Treasury money can be used.

Excerpted: ‘Want the Rich to Pay Their Fair Share? Don’t Call It a Tax’

Commondreams.org