Don’t start a discussion with tax cuts

Random thoughts about taxes.

1. Years ago I researched what political campaign donors get for their money. It turns out to be 1,000 or more to one.

An example: The Department of Agriculture sets milk prices. Imagine it refuses producers’ request for an increase. The industry makes a $200,000 “contribution” to the president. The milk price is increased. Next year Americans pay $200 million more for their milk. That’s a 1,000-to-one return on their “investment.”

You needn’t imagine. It happened. Except we paid $500-$700 million more.

Returns can include government contracts, tariffs, merger approvals, tax cuts and more.

This is an example of when increasing our taxes — to pay millions for publicly funded campaigns — could save us billions in family expenses.

2. Don’t mess with the tax code. If a business is to get taxpayer money make it a transparent appropriation on the table, not a hidden, manipulation of the tax code.

3. There are 12 or more categories of reasons why TIFs are objectionable.

For example, it’s backward. If a city or school board wants to spend tax money for legitimate public purposes, it needs voters’ approval. If it wants to distribute taxpayers’ money to for-profit private ventures, voters have no say.

We shouldn’t have different standards. But if we’re going to, aren’t taxpayers’ gifts to private businesses the ones requiring voter approval?

4. Our conversations should begin, not with taxes, but with the kind of life we want for ourselves and others. What our founders called “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Let’s pursue why the citizens of Finland and Denmark are number one and two on the worldwide happiness index while Americans are 18th.

Only the most hardhearted among us will bad-mouth Jesus’ appeal for food, water, shelter, clothing, and health care for the poor (and prison visits). Matthew 25.

What to do? Economist Milton Friedman once told me, “There’s nothing wrong with poverty that money can’t cure.”

Money, yes. And taxes are one source. President Richard Nixon joined Friedman in the negative income tax idea. In 2019 Stockton tried a guaranteed basic income experiment. Forty cities followed, including Los Angeles and now Chicago.

5. But taxes aren’t the only source.

Some employers have voluntarily provided employees what Democrats are proposing: full health care, retirement packages, family leave, on-premises child care — and company housing or wages that can cover rent.

Foundations such as Bill Gates’ fund social programs. So do churches and nonprofits. And consider the economic value of volunteers’ efforts. It’s estimated to be the equivalent of all cash contributions and major philanthropy combined.

6. Public policy discussions should progress through: What do we want? What are the alternative ways of accomplishing it? What is the most efficient and effective way to do it? If personnel and funding are needed, what are the alternative sources of both? What are their pros and cons?

Fiscal responsibility? Of course. But please, no more starting off backing up with talk about “taxes.”

Nicholas Johnson, Iowa City, maintains nicholasjohnson.org. Comments: mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org