We have previously discussed how there appears to an ever-expanding list of words deemed inappropriate or biased. It appears “taxpayer” may be the next suspect noun. While Republicans and Democrats alike have made pitches to protecting taxpayers, New Republic’s Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig wrote an article objecting that the use of the word in the 2016 budget is problematic and that we should start to view the noun as yet another loaded and coded word.
In a recent article, Breunig noted that the Republican budget uses “taxpayers” rather than the “people” to marginalize the many Americans who do not pay any taxes. The noun, she argues, “seems to subtly promote the idea that a person’s share in our democratic governance should depend upon their contribution in taxes.”
Here is the evidence cited:
In the 43-page budget, the word “taxpayer” and its permutations appear 24 times, as often as the word “people.” It’s worthwhile to compare these usages, because the terms are, in a sense, rival ideas. While “people” designates the broadest possible public as the subject of a political project, “taxpayer” advances a considerably narrower vision—and that’s why we should eliminate it from political rhetoric and punditry.
Though addressing people as “taxpayers” is common enough to appear politically neutral, it tends to carry more argumentative weight than it’s typically credited with. The House budget is full of examples of seemingly straightforward deployments of the term which are, upon closer inspection, clearly furthering a particular ideology.
One example that she cites is the use of the noun when discussing food stamps in the following passage:
Food stamps, public housing assistance, and development grants are judged not on whether they achieve improved health and economic outcomes for the recipients or build a stronger community, but on the size of their budgets. It is time these programs focus on core functions and responsibilities, not just on financial resources. In so doing this budget respects hard-working taxpayers who want to ensure their tax dollars are spent wisely.
Bruenig argues that “as the Republican authors of this budget know well, the beneficiaries of welfare programs tend to receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes, because they are in most cases low-income. The ‘taxpayers’ this passage has in mind, therefore, don’t seem to be the recipients of these welfare programs, but rather those who imagine that they personally fund them. By this logic, the public is divided neatly into makers and takers, to borrow the parlance of last election’s Republicans.”
I disagree with this view because politicians have long justified their expenditures to “the taxpayers” to assure them that their financial contributions to the treasury are being spent wisely and fairly. Even President Obama has repeatedly pitched his programs as protecting the interests of “taxpayers” as in his 2015 speech on the auto bailout.
What do you think?
I say this to everyone who calls JT to task about not doing a post about a certain topic of their interest. It’s horseshit. There are literally millions of topics. His blog, his choice. Start your own blog if you want some topic covered. Some folks who were here have done just that. I’ll leave it @ that.
JT
I’ve yet to see, on this blog, an item focusing on Florida’s governor’s banning of words and phrases concerning ‘Global warming’, as in that one specifically. If you work in the government you are not allowed to use these terms: global warming, climate change, or any of the typical terms used in the media to refer to the rise in sea temperatures, ice melting, etc.
The taxpayer/citizen differentiation when implying the privilege to vote based on taxes paid through income is ludicrous as has already been pointed out. 42% of revenue comes from individual income tax while 40% comes through payroll taxes. 9% comes through corporate taxes. The areas on which to focus seems to be payroll taxes and corporate. How much ‘payroll’ tax do the 1% really pay? Why, in this country almost entirely run through corporate puppet masters do corporate taxes remain so low?
The semantics of hapless politicians attempting to subliminally affect the voter is something that is always worth commenting on. However, why no comments of actual instructions by Florida’s governor to not use globally accepted terminology when referring to ‘what’s happening to the climate’? Why no in depth analysis of who pays taxes and who doesn’t including the 1%?
Regarding the privilege to vote, a vote from a citizen, whether they pay income tax or not is next to meaningless in this country where the oligarchs pick the candidates, control their exposure and diatribe, and direct them once elected. The constant arguments between the left and the right is the mind sink created by the conditions of the two party system. Either/or leaves no opportunities for worthwhile candidates to represent options where they may truly exist, in between. Like in the ‘Wizard of Oz’ don’t pay any attention to those guys pulling the strings from behind the curtain.
The nuances of the law are always entertaining and make for entertaining comments, but why not dig just a little deeper.
Unfortunately, our public servants all too seldom have any real ability to translate thoughts into words in any understandable way. I suspect that she is trying to convey what actually is a valid point, that being that public expenditure does need to be judged in two dimensions.
The first is the value that it delivers to those who are in need of the service. Is the program large enough to serve all who are in need? Is the service designed such that it properly serves the need? Is it being delivered in the right place, at the right time and in the proper quantity? Are there people in need who are being left out due to deficiencies of the program?
The other dimension is the interest of the taxpayer who is paying for the service. Is the program operating as efficiently as it can while still fulfilling its mandata? Is it delivering more than it needs to? Is it wasting resouces by delivering the wrong thing, or at the wrong time, or in the wrong place? Is the taxpayer being treated fairly by having his/her money spent in the most effective manner?
The insanity continues. Surely these people who come up with this continual political correctness must have something better to do.
I will use the reply from people who pay no income or property taxes. “We pay sales tax.” And, that’s true, making everyone but little children taxpayers. Orwell is glad he’s dead.
Well, I am torn on the interpretation of this.
Certainly I agree she is an ass, who is trying to control our mode and sentiment of thinking, presumptively telling us that the way we think is incorrect and we must all change ourselves en masse, like we are little children who need her to tell us right from wrong.
But as to an assessment, I think her thrust stems from a socialist mentality, that redistribution of wealth is a lot of dirty filthy sausage making that no average person should concern themselves with, not even incipiently. To actually focus on the differences between those who net pay into the system, and those who net extract from the system, leads to unacceptable, and unsettling, questions of entitlement, and that is too “complicated” for all us plebs to be even thinking about.
BTW, apparently there’s also a list of “coded sexism” words that can’t be used when talking about Hillary Clinton.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/25/here-are-the-words-hillarys-supporters-wont-let-you-say/
Please note email and server are not on the list.
“seems to subtly promote the idea that a person’s share in our democratic governance should depend upon their contribution in taxes.”
As well it should. It should be taken one step further so that the freeloaders shouldn’t be able to vote. But the President is already looking into just the opposite by proposing making voting mandatory.
Let’s just ban all speech completely. Everything, every word. On the plus side, we won’t have completely sheltered and privileged white cis writers running a first year English class on the language and trying to shame everyone into believe the same that they do.
The author must be a closet conservative executing a plot designed to make progressives look ridiculous.
“Words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was now given them.”
Thucydides: III 69-85
The Civil War at Corcyra
Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2002.09.27
This manipulation of language isn’t merely stupid, it reveals an evil enacted.
Back in 1998 and 1999 after Congress passed the IRS restructuring act, IRS began referring to taxpayers as “customers”. Like they have a choice of whether to “shop” at the IRS. I always felt that, if I ever stood up in court and said I was appearing for the “customer” instead of for the “taxpayer” , that I would probably be held in contempt by the judge. (Since I’m in the middle of a trial right now, I suppose I could try that out the next time I stand up in front of the judge. But I won’t.). 🙂 Have to agree that this is just plain stupid.
Good grief she’s ignorant. From the article: “for a nation born from a revolt against British taxation”.
Has she even read the Declaration of Independence? There’s a long list of problems and “imposing taxes on us without our consent” does not make the top ten.
Replace it with “serfs,” because that’s what we are.
Although “cattle” and “herd” would suffice.
This is still another example of political correctness and its twin, thought control. It’s clear that some people have entirely too much time on their hands, and have nothing better to do than sit around and dream up nonsense like this.
Why has Common Sense left the current generation and where has it gone? Anyone and everyone is a “Taxpayer” of one sort or another and therefore there is no discrimination. Bruenig needs to find a real job because she’s wasting her life looking for problems that do not exist!
Unless we also discuss “hidden taxes” which poor people pay a disproportionately higher percentage.
For example: If a poor person buys food at a grocery store, that consumer indirectly pays all of the expenses of the grocery store, distributors and manufacturers – the companies write the checks but consumers pay the bill.
Large corporation’s income = Gross revenue minus all expenses (including taxes). Consumers pay the entire tab.
In Big Brother’s doublespeak, people are becoming unpersons.
A form of mind control….
Even the poor pay taxes in some form, sales taxes at least. They do not live with paying NO taxes. This woman is an idiot. Bet she has no problem with corporations, or billionaires who get tax subsidies, or pay NO federal taxes at all because they’ve gotten loopholes thru their favorite bought off Congresscritter.