It’s Fix the Tax Code Friday!
This week, I’m focusing on taxes, budgets and earmarks. There has been some good discussion about whether Melissa Etheridge’s plan to boycott paying taxes in California in response to Proposition 8 is appropriate. So, I’ll take it a step further. Today’s Fix the Tax Code Friday question is:
Should taxpayers be allowed to specific that their tax dollars cannot be used for specific purposes for which they object on moral, religious or ethical grounds? For example, should you be allowed to opt your tax dollars out of funding stem cell research, abortion, the war in Iraq – even the financial bailout? Do you think it would be practical or valuable to have “hot button issues” listed on your tax returns to make the opt out easy, similar to the “election campaign” checkbox on your tax return?
Would this be democracy at its finest – or a hot mess?
Melissa Etheridge is angry.
In an article posted on The Daily Beast, Etheridge railed against the passing of Proposition 8 in California. Proposition 8 is, as you may know, a law which defines marriage in California as between a man and a woman. The law supersedes gay marriages in parts of the state, effectively making them null.
In response to the bill, Etheridge wrote of her relationship: “…she and I are not allowed the same right under the state constitution as any other citizen. Okay, so I am taking that to mean I do not have to pay my state taxes because I am not a full citizen. I mean that would just be wrong, to make someone pay taxes and not give them the same rights, sounds sort of like that taxation without representation thing from the history books.”
Etheridge went on to say that she could find another use for the approximate $500,000 that she now pays in taxes to the State of California and hints that perhaps a little civil disobedience is called for within the gay community. In a budget crisis such as California is currently experiencing, she notes that lost revenue would certainly be a hardship. So maybe, just maybe, the gay community in California should say no along with Etheridge to paying taxes…
Umm, no.
I do not understand Proposition 8. I love my husband and I don’t understand how the relationship of any other person (except for Luke Wilson, as mentioned before) threatens my marriage at all. I don’t feel the need to define, clarify or defend the sanctity of marriage. And I certainly don’t feel that it needs to be done through legislation. If you don’t believe in gay marriage, don’t get gay married. I dunno, it all feels so silly.
All of that said, the idea of refusing to pay taxes as a result of the passage of Proposition 8 is equally silly (sorry, Melissa, love your records, hate your tax theory).
First of all, you don’t have to be a “full citizen” in the US (or most states) to be responsible for a share of the tax burden. The criteria in most taxing jurisdiction in the US is residency or source of income, not citizenship. So, from a tax compliance perspective, even if one could establish lack of citizenship, it would not excuse the need to file and pay taxes.
Even from a tax policy perspective, it’s not a good argument. The government is not perfect. There will always be unpopular legislation, courses of action that we feel are unfair and expenditures that we don’t agree with – consider the war in Iraq, for example. That doesn’t excuse us from paying for the services that we use – roads, schools, courts, police, fire and other infrastructure. Do I like it? No. But consider the potential chaos that we would face if we selectively paid taxes based upon how fair we think something is…
Yes, I get that this is a really big deal. I do. It does have the effect of legislating away rights that had been previously granted. And that sucks. But the voters did it, not the Governor, not the legislature. And the voters made it law.
And Etheridge and other members of the gay community in California have every right to be angry, to hate that this happened and to work to fix what they perceive as an infringement on their rights. And I’m sure that they will. We’ll see it again in court in California (a legal challenge has already been mounted) – as well as in Tax Court, where Charles Merrill has filed a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
But does that give the gay community a pass on paying their taxes in the meantime? No, it doesn’t.
Whereas civil disobedience has generally been regarded as an immediate method of attracting attention to a cause, Etheridge arguably has more wider and more efficient means of shining a light on her cause. Might I suggest she sing about it, talk about it, yell about it, write about it…? But not break the law for it. In this case, I can’t help but feel that two wrongs do not make a right.
