In the Judeo-Christian traditions there is a concept of “tithing”. The idea is that the collective contribution to the institution that represents the spiritual foundation of its people is a privilege and a duty. To support this idea, there are references in the Bible that describe tithing as “putting God first” in one’s life, since it is believed that God is the reason why a person earned what they earned. Since God presumably needs no income, the tithing is used by that religious organization to further spiritual work on Earth, for the people who benefit from it. A church takes the tithing to accomplish things that a single person or family could not do on their own, such as create a school, build a church, provide support for the poor, create community events that form the glue of the congregation, etc.
A similar approach to financing large endeavors was the hallmark of monarchies for hundreds of years. The royal families owned everything. They taxed the people who were allowed to live on the royal lands as a kind of rent. The taxes collected were then used to pay for the common defense, explore the New World, build nice palaces and gardens, etc. While taxes and tithing are based on different concepts of authority (King or Queen on one hand, God on the other), the underlying premise was that the amounts paid were owed, and that they allowed accomplishments that could only be achieved through collective contribution of resources.
Along comes democracy, invented by Colonial rebels in America. The framers of the Constitution realized the practical necessity for collective support of common needs. The rules had to include commitments of the citizenry to fund the things that everyone needed, and couldn’t provide for themselves, by themselves, such as the “common defense”. Articles 8 and 9 of the Constitution outline the majority of the foundation for taxes. The difference in this type of tithing is that the amounts are owed essentially to each other, and not to a single deity or monarch.
In a democracy, the intent of taxes is the same as when a farmer’s barn would burn down. The community would join to help the farmer build a replacement, knowing that if and when their own barn was consumed by fire, ready hands would be willing to reciprocate.
Think of the things that are possible to create, because we Americans pay our taxes. The interstate highway system. Water and sewer utilities. Natural resources for all to enjoy in our parks system. Our ability to remain a sovereign country, having successfully defended our independence multiple times with a capable military. The exploration of space and the resulting scientific treasures that have improved our lives tremendously. The basic research in every area of science that has extended our lives and improved its quality. The provision of education to every citizen, to adulthood and beyond. And yes, even laws are the result of taxes, which pay politicians to be our represented legislators. Some laws keep us safer and allow for prosperity. Some laws make no sense at all.
Here’s where I think the rancor about taxes begins.
Speaking for myself, I don’t mind paying taxes, like I don’t mind paying dues to a club, if the money is spent well, according to the purposes outlined in our Constitution. It’s not about the amount of taxes, although there’s a practical limit on how much I can be tithed and still provide for myself and my family. For me, it’s more about what the money is used for.
People who categorically object to taxes are really saying they don’t like the way politicians are spending the money. They’d rather make the decisions themselves about how the money they’ve earned is spent. Or they’d rather let others pay the taxes but still benefit from the good that comes from collectively financed programs and public works. The first category of tax objectors want to live “off the grid”, with a pioneer’s spirit. The second category wants to live off the people who do contribute their fair share of taxes.
Much of the impassioned political and ideological debate is a cover for these two underlying reasons to object to taxes. When someone gets to be truly wealthy, a multi-millionaire or a billionaire, I think they often take on the perspective of royalty. The commoners don’t deserve a share of what the wealthy have acquired. No matter that the wealthy wouldn’t have acquired as much, except for the fact that the nation’s structure as a capitalistic democracy allowed them the opportunity to do so.
When an average citizen wants to pull out of the club and just live on their own, they are saying they want to get out of the club that doesn’t respect their independence, and their representatives in government don’t truly represent them. No matter that they can’t truly be fully independent, without giving up the safety, security and benefits of a national infrastructure paid by taxes.
Whoever tries to get your vote by arguing that taxes are inherently bad is bribing you. They are saying, “Vote for me and I’ll make sure you keep more of your money.” They can’t make good on that promise, so it costs them nothing to do so. It costs you your vote, however–a vote that might have gone to someone who could help make sure the tax money is spent on things that truly matter, as outlined in the Constitution.