DESPERATELY SEEKING A UNICORN.

In "Taxes Need a Rebrand," Michael Jarvis makes an argument straight out of the early days of the Clinton presidency, when Hillary was actually wearing the pants.  "Too often, tax is framed as a burden instead of a form of shared investment and discussed as a technical obligation rather than the foundation that allows modern societies to function."  Just reframe 'em as "contributions."  (Try not to think of George Lakoff.)

Too often, tax is framed as a burden instead of a form of shared investment. It is discussed as a technical obligation rather than the foundation that allows modern societies to function. Schools, healthcare systems, transportation networks, courts, emergency services, climate resilience measures, and public safety systems do not emerge on their own. They depend on sustained and predictable collective investment, and taxation remains the primary way societies make that investment possible.

You get your Common Dreams commentator card revoked if you even admit of the possibility that many of the items in that passage emerged through the discovery of trade-tested betterments.

Instead, you make the case for more of the technocratic wishful thinking that has put the whole tax and tax, spend and spend policy model in bad odor.

Seen this way, tax justice is not only about rates, revenue, or technical reforms. It is about whether societies have the resources required to deliver opportunity, security, and resilience in a consistent and equitable way.

Most people do not experience taxation through fiscal policy debates. They experience it through outcomes. They see whether schools are adequately resourced, healthcare is accessible, roads and infrastructure work, and governments can respond effectively to economic shocks, climate risks, and public emergencies.

That means the conversation should not begin with forms, rates, or technical policy language. It should begin with a more immediate and universal question: What do we want to contribute to make our world better, and how should we fund it? Do we want to reduce cancer rates, prepare communities for extreme weather, ensure every child receives a quality education, keep bridges and roads safe, breathe clean air and drink clean water, and build healthcare systems that can care for people as they age without placing the full burden on the next generation?

But changing the narrative around tax also requires rebuilding trust. People are more likely to see taxation as a shared investment when they understand where public money goes, how decisions are made, and how those investments improve daily life.

That's been the stuff of the Sunday shows for years, and it breaks down for a simple reason.  "In practice, though, it's wise to give no powers to Someone In Authority who shares your views that you would not want in the hands of Someone Else In Authority who despises your views."

That's the argument from first principles.  Next, Cliff Asness notes, reality comes up to bat.

The central issue of our time is the debate over the size and scope of government. Two unpleasant but undeniable mathematical truths limit the feasible policy choices. The recent sound and fury of the fiscal cliff follies in the end signified nothing because the resolution was in fact just a denial of both truths.

The first truth is that the current tax rates cannot support the promises made to middle-class Americans. The most unaffordable items in fiscal projections are Social Security for everyone and government-sponsored health care for the middle class. You cannot preserve these even with Draconian slashing of military, infrastructure, welfare, education, and other expenditures.

The second truth is that you cannot pay for the Life of Julia, or any vision of a cradle-to-grave welfare state, without massive and increasingly regressive middle-class taxes. The poor don’t have the money to pay for a European-style welfare state, and the rich, rich as they are, don’t have anywhere near enough.

Not only that, it’s easy to tax middle-class assets and transactions — things like payrolls, sales, and real estate — but soaking the rich means taxing investments. Investments are complicated and can be restructured to minimize taxes. Also, investments are the lifeblood of economic growth. Raising significantly more taxes from the rich also requires higher marginal tax rates — and their rates are already quite high. High marginal rates distort the economy and yield less revenue than anticipated because they increase the rewards for legal and illegal tax avoidance.

That’s not to say it’s impossible to get more money from the rich, but it’s tricky and past attempts have typically been less effective than forecast and often counterproductive. Moreover, even under the most optimistic assumptions, taxes on the rich — or taxes on businesses, financial transactions, or anything else aimed at the rich (and often hitting others) — will still not cover a large fraction of the costs of a European-style welfare state. Ask the Europeans — they’ve tried it all and failed.

That article dates to 2013.  The argument is still valid today.

The choice the country faces is simple. We can have big government and the Life of Julia (at least for a while, but that is another essay), with everyone paying through the nose and the middle-class share of taxes rising not falling, or we can return to the American tradition of limited government, with everyone paying a smaller burden to the state, with relatively limited services for, and relatively light taxes on, the middle class. What we cannot have is the Life of Julia at no additional burden to 99 out of 100 of us. Nobody, Left or Right, really thinks that math works, no matter what they may say in public.

Perhaps Mr Jarvis's concluding statement, "And it means building a shared understanding that a better world is not funded by good intentions alone, but by the choices societies make together," ought expand the set of shared choices beyond establishing governments and implementing policies.

It wouldn't hurt to drop that "better world" talk, either.  Is there anybody involved in commerce or politics or teaching or preaching who aspires to a worse world?  That language has been hijacked by assorted so-called progressives and now might be as good a time as any to either reclaim it, or to mock anyone who uses it.