“Taxation should not be perceived as something that is taken away from us but something that we collectively receive – a healthier, safer, far more decent and sustainable society”.
(A sentence from a letter to The Guardian from Mr. Greg Boyd, of Townsville, Queensland)
But Robert, does the quote have its limits? At what point does tax stop becoming a price we pay for civilisation, and start becoming a burden? I can also understand why most rich people are opposed to higher taxes. Although they may get better government services and infrastructure: unlike the poor, they will certainly have to pay for more than any direct increase in pensions or other benefits they may get from the government.
Can I suggest a rate, right off the top of my head ( and without any scientific basis)? Let us pick 35% as a level above which tax begins to be a burden and cause resentment. Bear in mind that marginal rates were at one time much higher than 35% , and the world didn’t collapse – actually, on the contrary.
Well, the fact is that it seems that the actual level of tax paid by well- off Americans comes out at, very approximately, 15 – 20%, which cannot be called a burden. There are some people who are free- riders, happy to make use of the facilities offered by an advanced, modern economy, but unwilling to contribute themselves. The shocking thing is that tax rates expressed as percentages paid by the poor, who have no deductions, can be higher than rich people who can afford accountants. We should pay for a civilised what we are able to pay.