Suckstorff: What's the big deal with paying taxes?

I found plenty to be disappointed with in the recent midterm elections, but nothing upset me quite as much as the 51 percent of voters in my hometown who voted down Proposal 1, a dedicated millage to fund an independent city library. Budget shortfalls have forced the government of Troy, MI to cut library funding, and the recent ballot initiative was seen as the library's last chance of survival.

Given my deep fondness for libraries, it wouldn't be a stretch to say that the imminent closure of my hometown library next year feels a bit like losing a loved one. Not only will this near-sacred place close for good, other kids in Troy won't be able to enjoy this invaluable outlet for their intellectual and creative passions like I was.

More than upset, though, I find myself mostly pissed off at Troy residents who voted down Proposal 1, which would have increased taxes about $2 a week per household. Granted, a swirl of confusion and misinformation surrounded the issue, as the midterm ballot featured three similar initiatives which borrowed language similar to Proposal 1's yet mandated different tax rates. The reticence of anyone to explain the purpose of the other three initiatives, as well as the expressed opposition of local Tea Party affiliate Troy Citizens United to all four proposals, suggests that their real purpose was to confuse voters into defeating all four initiatives and thereby ensure no tax increases.

Which begs the question: what's the big problem with paying taxes? Is an extra $2 a week in a fairly affluent town too much to pay for a library? We see this same general anti-tax attitude in the recent report issued by President Obama's debt-reduction commission, which recommended capping federal revenues (which mostly comes from taxes) at 21 percent of the GDP.

Now, I realize that no one wants to pay taxes. I understand that financial times are tight and that people have even fewer resources to work with than usual. I also accept that my attitude on this subject will probably change once I start paying taxes myself.

But aren't there things worth paying taxes for, like libraries or decreasing the deficit? If the point of the deficit reduction committee is to lower federal debt, why does the report deliberately limit the amount of money the government can take in?

The metaphor my politically conservative high school history teacher liked to use to illustrate the injustice (for her) of taxes was your GPA. Say you work your tail off in school and do tremendously well, while one of your classmates falls behind and struggles. Taxes, in this analogy, are like taking away some of the points in your GPA (lowering you to a 3.3 from a 3.7, for instance) and redistributing them to raise a peer from a 2.7 to a 3.1. The underperforming student benefits to the detriment of the diligent one.

I have many, many problems with this analogy — including the fact that industriousness in one's profession doesn't necessarily produce a higher income, as the scenario implies — but my biggest beef may be this: you get something out of the tax money you pay. In the GPA situation, the effect on you is totally injurious. When you pay taxes, on the other hand, that money doesn't all go toward someone else's food stamps (and even if it did, I wouldn't object, but that's another column). It funds the construction and maintenance of your local roads or the public transit you take to work everyday. It enables local, state and federal governments to build facilities like libraries where kids can learn to love stories and learn to love learning.

I'm not arguing that taxes should be egregiously high, and I realize that paying taxes is and will always be highly unpopular. But with local, state, and federal governments utterly strapped for cash, we should consider the possibility that paying higher taxes—even if it's just $2 a week — is worth it.

Hana Suckstorff is a Weinberg senior. She can be reached at hsuckstorff@gmail.com.