Taxation a necessity to preserve our society of comfort
There is so much discussion and numerous viewpoints today about the size of government, the amount of money the government should borrow, how big a deal the debt currently is, and whether or not we can responsibly raise taxes while still in a recession. But one of the major misconceptions present in a large number of debates deals with people's perceptions of taxes. Especially with the last midterm elections which so many people view as a clear message for smaller less intrusive government, the word "taxes" got thrown around so often, used pejoratively by the right, while being a taboo word for the left.
It seems like neither major political party is willing to sit down and truly discuss what is necessary to shrink our growing deficit and enormous public debt. A poll in December showed that one-quarter of Americans feel the deficit and federal spending is the largest problem facing America right now. It is a bigger issue than the wars, immigration, health care, or the economy. Yet, so many people oppose raising taxes on anyone but the most wealthy in this country. As citizens, we seem to have the mindset of, "I believe we need to be more financially conservative, but I don't support raising taxes to pay for it."
We view taxes as a penalty for working hard, for earning more, for being successful. But the reality is that taxes are not a burden placed on the population in order to pay for programs that have little benefit to the tax payer. Taxes are the cost of living in society. They are how we pay for our roads, ensure the safety of our food, the testing of new drugs, the protection of our electrical grid, our national defense, our sewer system, our trash disposal and our schools, just to name a few of the benefits.
We seem to view taxes as this abstract evil that we can somehow get rid of, while at the same time have a balanced federal budget. But no one is in real support of cutting the federal budget. When asked if we should cut spending in general, there is widespread support; but when asked what we should cut, the mind set is "anything that doesn't affect me." So earmarks, as the most localized spending, are the first thing to go. But earmarks make up less that 2 percent of our federal budget, obviously not enough to make any substantial difference. After that, no one can agree on what to cut, because the fact of the matter is that we all receive benefits from the services our government gives.
We all would rather have the FDA testing out new drugs before companies sell them to the public. We would rather have the USDA inspecting food processing plants to ensure they are clean and sanitary. We want our military to be top notch and a step above the rest. We want more money for teachers and schools. We want police there keeping our cities safe. We want the U.S. Border Patrol to keep the drug cartels and violence out of America. We want the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security to keep us safe from terrorist attacks. As a society, we want all of these services but don't want to pay for them.
Without Social Security, over 40 percent of seniors would live in poverty; with it, only 16.1 percent do. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid may be the largest contributors to our national debt, but the fact of the matter is that they benefit so many and provide a life-line to those in the most need; we shouldn't get rid of them. The fact that these programs need to be reformed does not diminish the incredible amount of good they do in so many lives. Certainly, people should not view Social Security as their main source of income after retirement, but that does not negate the good it does for the 13 million seniors who would otherwise live below the poverty line.
We must take a good hard look at ourselves as a society and ask whether we want these services and aids or whether we want a society in which our food and our medicine is unregulated, our borders are not well protected or where we no longer help those at the bottom. I would rather have the FDA, would rather our government give assistance to those in need and would rather have well staffed and funded schools for future generations.
Cody Shilling is a Will Rice College sophomore.
More from The Rice Thresher
Before you attend a counseling session at the Rice counseling center, you will be told that “the RCC maintains strict standards regarding privacy.” You will find statements from the university that your mental health record will not be shared with anyone outside of extreme situations of imminent harm, and only then that your information will be shared with only the necessary officials. This sounds great, except that these assurances bear no teeth whatsoever — no enforcement agency ensures that Rice follows its public confidentiality promises, and there are no penalties for Rice if they break them. The Wellbeing and Counseling Centers should more directly communicate the limits of their confidentiality policies when compared to unaffiliated counseling centers, and students in sensitive situations should take the necessary precautions to protect their information.
This week marks the last issue of the Thresher for the year, and for the seniors like myself, our last issue ever. I have been a part of the Thresher since freshman year. And it would not be an exaggeration to say it has defined my Rice experience. As someone pursuing a career in journalism after graduation, there has been no better place to learn than at this paper.
In January, the Rice Board of Trustees announced plans to move the Founder’s memorial to another area of the academic quad as part of a whole redesign, adding additional context of his “entanglement” with slavery. This comes despite continual calls from the student body to not have the enslaver displayed in the quad regardless of the context provided. It would be just for these calls to action and the majority of the Task Force Committee who voted to not keep it there that the Board of Trustees decide to not keep the memorial prominently displayed in the quad at all.