Taxes Are Not the Mark of Civilized Society
Contra the famous quotation from Oliver Wendell Holmes, there's nothing particularly civilized about the way our governments spend the money we provide.

This year's tax day falls on Tuesday, although most Californians have a reprieve until October if they live in a county that the Federal Emergency Management Agency has deemed a disaster area due to recent flooding. On its website, the IRS tells taxpayers that it's a "win-win" to file earlier, although the only real winners are the federal treasury and your accountant.
Thanks to the World War II-era system of withholding, most Americans don't grasp the level of taxes they pay. It's an old truism that Americans might take to the streets if there were no withholding—and they had to pay the state and federal tax-collection agencies in cash at the end of the year. That way, they would know exactly how much they have to fork out to the government each year.
Even with the current setup, Americans have every reason to be infuriated by the local, state, and federal taxes they must pay. At which point my progressive friends love to quote Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: "Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society." The quotation is carved above the entrance at the IRS headquarters in Washington, D.C.
There's obviously some truth in that message. We need to pay for the infrastructure, schools, police patrols, parks, and other public services that support a well-functioning society. Yet there's nothing particularly civilized about the way our governments spend the money we provide—or the money our great-grandkids will presumably pay if the feds make good on nearly $32 trillion in federal debt.
It's mind-boggling to think about how little we actually get for all that cash, especially here in California where the state government measures success by how much money they allocate for different programs rather than by how effectively those programs fulfill their stated goals. The governor always touts bold new "investments," yet would anyone argue that the funded programs alleviate any of the state's many problems and crises?
California's public schools grab more than 40 percent of our astronomical state budget, yet news reports of educational outcomes suggest that we have some of the worst public schools in the nation. Our infrastructure is crumbling and California struggles to keep the basics—water supplies, the electrical grid, and our transportation network—functioning in a tolerable manner. We spend more money on the same bloated agencies and failed policies.
Is that civilized? It's always the tail wagging the dog, as the public-employee unions that represent the people who work for government see every new dollar as something that should be divvied up among their members. For a sense of where our money goes, check out Transparent California and type in, say, "fire captain" and the first page shows 35 entries with total compensation packages ranging from $539,000 to $681,000. Do you think taxpayers are getting a fair bang for the buck?
I find it funny that Democrats still are seething over the 1978 tax revolt that led to property tax limiting Proposition 13. Yet if that initiative ever went away, and most Californians had to pay triple their current property taxes, does anyone seriously believe that officials would suddenly improve our schools and expand our freeways?
Last year, California enjoyed a remarkable $97.5-billion surplus. That excess is almost as much as the entire budget of Ireland, yet no one here has noticed any great improvements in the provision of services. Heck, the Employment Development Department squandered as much as $30 billion in fraudulent payments—and the person in charge of that agency is now up for one of the nation's top Cabinet level posts.
At the federal level, our tax dollars are a giant grab bag that, naturally, politicians eagerly spend in ways that satisfy their ideological predispositions or serve their valued constituencies. The budget is full of giveaways that only tangentially have anything to do with providing efficient public services. And there's nothing we can do about it. Nearly three-quarters of federal spending is on autopilot—for items such as "entitlements" and debt service.
Every administration, Democrat or Republican, outdoes the prior administration in spending, even if their priorities differ. The Biden administration is of course obliterating spending records. Its solution is to give the IRS an extra $80 billion—most of which it will use to step up enforcement. The agency typically targets people without the means to fight back. It's the equivalent of searching the sofa cushions for loose change when you can't pay the mortgage.
The Left always blames rich people for not paying their "fair share," but in California the wealthiest five percent pay 70 percent of income taxes, per a recent report. The problem isn't the greed of people who fork over their hard-earned money, but the insatiable appetite of government. So don't feel guilty when you pay your taxes this week. You have every right to find the system uncivilized.
This column was first published in The Orange County Register.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
What is needed is a quick and clear retort to “the rich need to pay their fair share”. Explaining that “the rich” are paying most of the taxes is a non-starter to people with a socialist ax to grind. Something better than “they already are”.
C’mon folks, let’s get some pithy responses. Or better, some cutting opening comment, something as simple as, but even better than “a rising tide floats all boats”.
BUT WARREN BUFFETS SECRETARY!!!
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit.. ???? AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> GOOGLE WORK
Fuck you, cut spending.
And the size of the Government.
Not intrinsically necessary. You want to keep the same number of employees and can afford to pay them less? Fine.
True. But realistic? Methinks not. Besides cutting the size should discourage more growth. Of course the Government would have to form a committee to study the ramifications of altering the government structure, which would then need a level of administration to record the study and a presentation committee to reveal the results. But I digress....
sbut 48 to 52% of current thievery, er squeeze me, salary, seems about right. And keep working till 65 before you collect your pogey.
It's because every new spending bill includes a new agency. Each new agency then has to expand to get more power.
Think of all the people you are going to put out of work if you cut spending.
It works out to be 1 million more unemployed for every 30 billion you reduce the budget.
So reducing the budget by 1 trillion will put 30 million Americans out of work.
That would collapse the economy pretty quickly wouldn't it?
And then the government would need to spend almost as much to prevent those 30 million Americans from starving.
LOL. That makes me laugh.
the reason that would happen is that all those now-unemployed goobermunt "werkers" are so used to standing about waiting for someone to "suggest" to them what to do, they'd do the same outside their current cage, and thus "need" that same government to nanny them. Maybe even nursemaid them.
Face it, in general people have either forgotten, or never learned, how to WORK. Because they get paid whether they produce anything useful or just keep their cubicle chairs firmly planted against the over-priced carpet.
I’m sure those are totally solid numbers, but let’s try it anyway.
Idiot.
What is needed is a quick and clear retort to “the rich need to pay their fair share”.
“What’s my ‘fair share’ of your paycheck?”
"Fuck you, shoot yourself, commie whore."
(The second one is, admittedly, not likely to change many minds )
All those who don't want to pay for the benefits they receive from American society are free to leave and form their own country.
Libertarians have tried that several times, and within days to weeks it's turned out to be a total disaster.
That makes me laugh.
What is needed is a quick and clear retort to “the rich need to pay their fair share”.
Remember the band Ten Years After and their song "I'd Love To Change The World"?
Tax the rich, feed the poor
'Til there are no rich no more
That's the mentality. To them the fact that rich people exist is proof that they don't pay their fair share. You can't refute that with logic or reason. You'd have better luck convincing a Trump supporter that he lost the election.
The song also includes the lines
Bees make honey
Who needs money
Libtopia at its finest.
When is Hillary going to admit she lost?
A few hours after polls closed on the 2016 election, that's when:
Last night, I congratulated Donald Trump and offered to work with him on behalf of our country. I hope that he will be a successful president for all Americans. Hillary Clinton - November 9, 2016
Hillary never admitted she lost, in Conservative Bizzaro-land.
I love that line in Fiddler on the Roof where Tevye says, after someone pans rich people, 'I like rich people. I like the way they live. I like the way I live when I am around them".
The scripture says "If a man WILL NOT work, neither should he eat". Not well, the "will not work" is a specific choice the one not working has made. It does NOT apply to those who are physically or mentally unable to work.
God established the solid connexion between what a man's HAND DOES and what his MOUTH GETS to eat. Far too many children grow up today never comprehendin that equation. And our "wonderful" government have made it ever more difficut for wise parents to instill that into them. Can't start working till the age when, a couple centuries ago a man would have a wife and some ids to take care of, and did. Can't do common chores like weeding lawnmowoing housepaointing, fence building, like I did when I was a kid. "Employment security" would come in and fine, perhaps even jail, someone.. the parents for "allowing" their furteen year old son to mow lawns for hire, bust them for underage employment, no withholdong, workmen's copensation, etc. At fourteen I ran my own house painting company. Had to ride my bike to the jobs but work I did. Today some folks would go to jail and be paying "restitution" to the government...... kids caint'WORK ya know.
LOL no. The commies dont care about "fair share" or whatever. They just want to eat the rich. They will not be satisfied until the rich are made poor.
And replace the elite rich with the elite inner Party rulers.
The rich are 10 times richer than they were in 1980.
The middle class haven't had their wealth increase at all.
Why should this inequity be permitted to persist?
And taxing them to the point of poverty is the answer? Then what, only the government is rich enough to become totalitarian? This is why the democrats push 'tax the rich!' They appeal to your emotions knowing damn well that is not possible. The same with trying to take away the second amendment. Disarm, divide, make poor, and rule! Too bad our education system is also ruled by the very same people that want to keep us dumb!
Yup, the median US family has the same exact material life, health, amenities, and leisure now that they had in 1980. And the poor families, too.
BTW, you might be looking for Socialist Today, though I admit that the content of Reason might confuse you.
They claim the rich are greedy while they desire the rich to pay 90%. That's a very greedy number.
One side has greed by keeping what they made.
The other side has greed in how much they want to take from others.
I have no problem with the first.
To paraphrase the Bobs from Office Space:
The Greed is all on this side of the table - Rep. Bobs
Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do.....
For more detail visit the given link..........>>> http://Www.jobsrevenue.com
California state budget - total 210 billion
Education 70 billion.
70/210 = 33% not 40% as dishonestly claimed in the article.
I have never encountered a Libertarian who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.
Never.
Fuck off.
"I have never encountered a Libertarian who wasn’t a congenital and perpetual liar.
Never."
You should probably either redefine your definition of "libertarian" or meet quite a few more.
Note: there are few of what I call "libertarians" on this site, Most especially in the comment section. But, it is also true that "libertarians" come in many different flavors and often times have as much or more resistance to the political stances of other "libertarians"as they do with other political parties.
Just think about how much worse our problems would be if the government weren't spending all that money on solving them! Say they spend a billion dollars on a stadium for the NFL - imagine if the team had to play on the street, think about the traffic snarls with so many people on the street! Or paying homeless people to remain homeless drug-crazed lunatics - imagine how many homeless you'd have if the government quit paying them! And as far as public employees go, you have to pay the best to hire the best. It's why government employees are so highly regarded compared to their private sector counterparts.
I've made $1250 so far this week working online and I'm a full time student. I'm using an online business opportunity I heard about and I'AM made such great money. It's really user friendly and I'm just so happy that I found out about it. Here's what I do,for more information simply.
Open this link thank you.....................>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
VendicarD made this exact same argument upthread. Except he was serious.
Only Californians can complain about flooding and droughts on the same day.
California state budget – total 210 billion
Education 70 billion.
70/210 = 33% not 40% as dishonestly claimed in the article.
I have never encountered a Libertarian who wasn’t a congenital and perpetual liar.
Never.
One obvious solution would be to triple the 30 million illegals already here within 2 years and let them vote in local elections, and they will apply the pressure and force government to be more accountable and responsible with our tax dollars, i.e. give more of it to them, not us.
be certain that is the whole plan behind erasing the "border". (I mean, the one that isn't)
Let's look at the record: "Three Generations of Idiots is Enough." - Oliver Wendell Holmes, lover of eugenics (Buck v Bell), press gang slavery (Shenck v US) and alcohol/drug prohibition with federal agents listening in on your phone (Olmstead v US). This looter oughtta know a thing or three about idiots!
'"The Left always blames rich people for not paying their "fair share..."'
Short answer: "Consumption tax."
That's not the point. They see the economy as a zero-sum game. Every dollar that a rich person has (and they see the world in dollars, not wealth) was somehow taken from the poor either by not paying them enough in wages or not giving them welfare (not taking is giving and not giving is taking). That and there's the whole labor theory of value which states that a poor person sewing up shoes is adding more value to the economy than a rich person who merely builds a factory for poor people to work. And then there's the fact that envy, one of the seven deadly sins, is now the height of virtue. That means that the rich will not have paid their fair share until they're not rich anymore, with rich being defined as "they've got more than me."
"That’s not the point. They see the economy as a zero-sum game."
I am aware of that. But one can still hope that logic and efficiency could overcome envy, yes? (Yeah, don't ask what I've been smoking.)
""But one can still hope that logic and efficiency could overcome envy, yes? ""
The left is too busy calling logic racist.
"The left is too busy calling logic racist."
The "right" has its fair share of idiots, as well.
Consumption tax = wealthy pay essentially no tax because they do not consume the vast majority of their wealth.
The poor and the middle class do, so a consumption tax means a massive tax hike for the middle class and a massive tax cut for the wealthy.
"The poor and the middle class do, so a consumption tax means a massive tax hike for the middle class and a massive tax cut for the wealthy."
As has been discussed ad-nauseum here before, each taxpaying citizen would receive reimbursement checks to cover the taxes collected on the first $30,000 (or some figure) spent. Whether they spent such monies or not. Therefore, the poor, and a decent percentage of the middle-class, would pay no federal taxes at all, which isn't a whole lot different from what we have today. Not progressive above a certain level of income, but not regressive. And certainly doesn't hurt the poor.
Hey, fucktard, what would your socialist utopia look like without "rich" people to pay for government?
Taxes are the price you pay for assmonkeys.
"STEAL MORE!!!!!!!!!!", says the criminal leftards.
We need to pay for the infrastructure, schools, police patrols, parks, and other public services that support a well-functioning society.
All of these things happen, have happened, and can happen without being provisioned by government.
In what imaginary universe did that happen?
a deep look at the situation of the early Colinies in the americas is where that almost happened.. VERY close. Most "publicservants' were volunteers, neighbours got togehter nd built roads, dams, bridges, supplied their own weapons f defense, bought their own gunpowder and shot, plied trades that were needed and got compensated for their time, sweat, skill. The town millitias were self-supporting, each made his own clothing or family did, church congregations built their own church-houses on theor own nickel, and they were often used for town cuncils, public meetngs, etc. A man might realise a bridge needs built at this point alng a river or stream, and build it. He'd put out a toll box and folks, on the honour system or as they could afford, would drop some coins into it. WHen the builder thought he'd collected enough he'd take the box away. Farries, same way. Widows, orphans, the disabled, were all cared for by the folks in the town where they lived, families often taking induviduals or families into theor iwn homes, or a town crew woudl build a smaller dwelling on the property.
Where have all these things happened before without government?
No where on this planet. Maybe on your fantasy planet of Libertopia.
California state budget – total 210 billion
Education 70 billion.
70/210 = 33% not 40% as dishonestly claimed in the article.
I have never encountered a Libertarian who wasn’t a congenital and perpetual liar.
Never.
Fucktard can cut and paste.
"It's an old truism that Americans might take to the streets if there were no withholding—and they had to pay the state and federal tax-collection agencies in cash at the end of the year."
And just think of the mobs--and the demand for government overhaul--if, even only for one year, we had to pay a head tax. That's approaching $20k for each man, woman, child, and gender-insane.
I am willing to discuss the idea that some taxes are necessary for minimal government functions that help support a modern, first-world society. But only if the DEI socialists can also accept that financial inequality is also part of the "price" we pay for a modern, first-world society.
" financial inequality is also part of the “price” we pay for a modern, first-world society."
America hasn't been a modern first world country for many decades.
Due to the failure to maintain infrastructure, America is now a middle of the road second world country and sinking rapidly...
California state budget – total 210 billion
Education 70 billion.
70/210 = 33% not 40% as dishonestly claimed in the article.
I have never encountered a Libertarian who wasn’t a congenital and perpetual liar.
Never.
Due to the failure to maintain infrastructure, America is now a middle of the road second world country
when is the last time you actually DROVE a car in Mexico, Guatemala, Dominican Republic Haiti, El Salvador, the Philippines, Nigeria, South africa, most of Brasil, etc? Yu need to get out and about more before you go off pointificatii=ng abut that of which you know nought.
Part of the outrageous level of taxes today is the incomprehensible featherbeading padding, overcharging, time-eating, task-specific employees (the guy on the backhoe cannot get off and use the shovel to clear a bit of dirt, he MUST sit there and wait for the "labourer" to happen along take his two scoops with HIS "special" shovel, then Mr.Backhoe can get back and work. TWO employyes to do what one could far ore efficiently do, and actually DOES in the private sector. I kniw folks who are contractors... for every government job above some small threshhold, they MUST use "prevaiing wage" rates, labour separation, and pad the bill with so many unnecessary things that are NEVER dne in a private setting.... highway build and/or repair contracts run about double what the same project would be if it were in the private sector, i.e NOT a government boondoggle, er, squeeze me, job. AND they are forced to hire a special accuntant to keep track of all the minute details. Padding, anyone?
More fucktard cut and paste.
Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society.
Of course that statement is simply a claim with foundational support. He might as well have said, "Hookers and blow are what we pay for a civilized society." The notion that the state is the defining element of a civilized society is laughable. States have existed in utter barbarity and societies have been civilized without states. Put simply, Holmes' claim here is an assertion cited as proof.
V These taxes are what we pay for a civilized society ...
XXXXX------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... and these taxes are what we pay for tyranny ^
Oliver Wendell Holmes was a disgusting tyrannical blowhard.
"Three Generations of Imbeciles are Enough” - from his decision to allow forced sterilization of a low IQ ward of the state. Great guy.
An _allegedly_ low IQ ward of the state. Holmes unquestionably accepted some pretty dubious claims, just because government officials made them.
And don't forget when he analogized handing out pamphlets to "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater." (Without even asking for any evidence of falsity.)
Three generations...
ya all that ^^^
At which point my progressive friends love to quote Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: "Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society."
It almost makes me want to falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
“It almost makes me want to falsely yell “fire” in a crowded theater.”
Except that yelling fire in a crowded theater is not illegal, of course. Not paying taxes will land you in jail.
Yeah, I should probably get around to filing my 2021 return.
the vibration rings in your coffee are the 174,000 Florsheims headed your way
"Yeah, I should probably get around to filing my 2021 return."
You are surely a menace to society!!
The theater's closed because of COVID.
Contra the famous quotation from Oliver Wendell Holmes, there's nothing particularly civilized about the way our governments spend the money we provide.
Looks up-blog...
But if we added just $1 for every person on earth to come to the US and... do something, we'd be getting a bargain for our tax dollars!
"The agency typically targets people without the means to fight back. "
Yeah, no shit sherlock. The money is intended to be able to go after the TOP earners who have all manners of ways to avoid paying taxes. Kinda happens when Republicans endlessly cut funds to the IRS so them and their rich buddies can avoid more taxes.
It's funny how you masquerade as a serious publication with your bullshit. You dumb down shit and intentionally misrepresent things to sell bullshit to the rubes- basically so your donors like Koch and other fuckheads can keep doing whatever the fuck they want- society, government, everything- be damned.
Contra Holmes and popular opinion, taxes are the sign of an uncivilized society.
If the absolute best way you/we can think of to organize society depends on extorting money with menaces for its basic functioning, you/we don't deserve to call your/ourselves civilized.
There would be no need for coercion if your imaginary altruistic society existed.
Well America is one of the least civilized nations on Earth due to lack of health care, and rational governance, lack of infrastructure maintenance, etc.
America is now a middle of the road second world country thanks to 4 decades of failed Libertarian economic policies.
Fuck off, part 2.
Imagine being this fucking retarded.
Libertarians haven’t controlled shit, ever. And not one president or congress in the last 100 years has tried to implement their fiscal policies.
What they HAVE done is try to implement some bastard form of Keynesian economic policy while both parties drift further towards your ideal goals of cradle to grave mothering.
In short: Fuck off, slaver.
Right. Taxes are the mark of domestication.
Domestication is what makes people distinct from wild animals.
Nothing we can do about it? Really? We can influence what legislators do with our tax dollars by voting them in or out every 2 or 4 years, according to our individual priorities. The fact that every administration gets to outspend the previous ones is our fault because we don't organize well enough to elect more frugal representatives. Just the opposite in fact. We have organized ourselves into huge interest groups (corporations, lobbies, senior citizens groups, the military-industrial complex, etc.) having disproportionately greater ability to elect and then basically own the politicians who will protect the status quo. Personally, I really don't want more than a bare minimum of my tax dollars going to support the pentagon, the cia, and the so-called defense industry. I'd like to see a large, powerful interest group of like-minded taxpayers emerge to take on the death and secrets departments and businesses. I'm not holding my breath.
Kinda buried the lede, didn't ya?
In case y'all missed it: Reason.com and most of it's writers prefer to live in California over any other state in the union. Their claimed preferences do not match their lived preferences.
Or, to put it another way... if you hate California so much, leave. You can't even make a serious claim that you're trying to "improve" California as the state's Libertarian party is a total joke that doesn't even bother trying in most of the jungle primaries (which are notoriously easy to qualify for).
From what I've seen most school systems figure between about 15 and 30 thousand per year per student. Consider: a family with five children, deciding to home school them, provides a far superior education to each of their kids for maybe $1500 year. Most are closer to a thousand. SO.. when government do it, the cost for five kids everaged per year runs above a hundred thousand per year.
Those same kids, being homeschooled, will get a far superior education AND save around half a million tax dollars from being spent each year. Except for the fact the homeschooled family also pay their taxes to perpetuate the public school system, for the rest of the population, that family save the rest of the state h some four to five hundred thousand dollars per year. Figure that over the 12 years a kid is in school, that ain't chump change any more Darlin'
And don't try and come back to me with how "horrible" home education is. I know a few hundred individuals who have been homechooled. Many are in their forties now, doing the same for their own kids. Quite a number of these homeschooled folks are wealthy.. several of them literal millionaires. Many more are very comfortable in their circumstances. The children of some of the older ones are alreadyd making serious money in various trades and ventures. They ALL know how to work, and how to make their money count. NONE have gotten a free ride on Daddy's coattails. The Dads were smart enough to teach their kids how to be responsible, work hard AND smart, relate to others. Together these families, now three generations, have saved their respective governments several millions of dollars NOT spent on "educaing" their children preferring to do it themselves.. and far better into the bargain.
Get government OUT of about ninety percent of what they now do and watch this nation prosper.
I've made $1250 so far this week working online and I'm a full time student. I'm using an online business opportunity I heard about and I'AM made such great money. It's really user friendly and I'm just so happy that I found out about it. Here's what I do,for more information simply.
Open this link thank you.....................>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
"We need to pay for the infrastructure, schools, police patrols, parks, and other public services that support a well-functioning society."
All of which have been privatized - in whole or in part - in various areas. There is no reason why these things must be performed by the government.