Life, Liberty and Property

The New York Times published an Op-Ed (via Mises) suggesting that we stop using the term “taxes” and start calling them “dues.” I struggled reading this, as I kept waiting for the “April Fools” to appear at the end of every sentence. It doesn’t ever show up. The explanation: 

But the word “dues” also plays into the psychology of group identity, and that can work to the benefit of conservatives and liberals alike. Consider that “tax” comes from the Latin for “appraise” with punitive overtones of “censure” or “fault,” as if wage-earners have done something wrong by their labors. “Dues,” in contrast, is rooted in social obligation and duty.

The idea is to play into the psychology of the terminology. Of course even the author realizes that even this won’t make people love being compelled to pay the government once per year:

“Look,” I said to a conservative friend, “simply saying ‘hard earned’ every time you say ‘tax dollars’ doesn’t make bureaucrats think twice before spending. But spending other peoples’ dues, now that’s not so easy.” He muttered darkly. With a liberal friend, I mentioned a study showing that words like “social” and “contract” make people more willing to pay their share. “But I probably wouldn’t like paying dues either,” he replied. “The government isn’t my kind of club.”

Nonetheless, the author goes on to expound the wonders of taxation and the “10,000 services” that our kindly government chooses to bestow us with. As he suggests, we do get transit systems and schools for our tax dollars — neither of which are particularly effective. So what exactly are we paying for? The government acts just like one of those big old nasty corporate monopolies that big-governmenters use as their bogeyman, and yet, unlike a corporation, we don’t have an option to not buy what the government is selling.

“Taxation” is a throwback to the time when kings picked our pockets. 

Now, instead of the King, it is Senators and Congressmen. Does that make it any better?