A taxing conversation

Death and taxes. Most of us accept death’s inevitability, but Americans have never really come to terms with taxes. Humans have been hotheaded about taxes for-almost-ever. Check out the Bible. One of the four gospels of the New Testament was written by a tax collector.

When it comes to taxes, two things are inevitable: People will always hate paying them and people will always pay them. Well, most people. The Tax-Evader-in-Chief doesn’t. Hell, we’ve got an entire political party devoted almost exclusively to hating taxes.

Hate! Hate! Hate!

I thought of this last weekend when I went for a walk and saw those angry yellow signs. 

NO!

Sends a message all right, but what’s the message? “NO! not ever” or “NO! just this once, maybe next time”?

Property owners are angry. Even for people who don’t actively hate taxes, there is a point where paying them becomes a serious burden. A lot of Oak Parkers have reached that point. Good people. Love kids, support education. They would never put an ugly, angry sign on their lawn silently shouting at pedestrians as they walk by.

I’m sympathetic. The system puts too much strain on property owners. We need a multifaceted approach to funding education. I’ve heard this and all the other arguments — from both sides — many, many times during endorsement interviews for a quarter-century, in addition to editing thousands of letters for our Viewpoints section. It’s like being in the movie Groundhog Day.

Here’s the gist of it: We have a system in place. Tax caps (a quarter-century old, courtesy of Jim Edgar) limit levy increases to 5 percent or the CPI, whichever is less (it’s always the CPI). They hold the line on tax increases but also force school districts into deficit spending, so every few years the schools have to go before the voters and ask for a raise. Taxation with representation. 

If voters say NO! too many times, we will (eventually) end up with a half-assed school system. If voters say “I guess so, sheesh” too many times, resentment will build toward the next NO! So the school district issues dire warnings about draconian cuts, increased class size, decreased property values, which may be exaggerated or not as imminent as implied. The opposition, meanwhile, is sure there’s massive waste that could easily be cut if only the school district were run like a business. So some opponents run for office, and some win, and they find out the inefficiencies aren’t enough to make a difference. With each “ask” (now a noun), the opponents get more melodramatic, warning that taxpayers will move out of town, we’ll lose economic diversity, people just can’t take it anymore. 

Both sides agree the pension thing is a mess and that the state and the feds are too screwed up and corrupt to expect any real help (especially true this time around). We must change the way education is funded, everyone agrees, nodding gravely. But it’s like that other inevitability, the weather. Nobody ever does anything about it.

What’s missing in all this is an honest discussion about taxes, both nationally and locally. 

Educating our kids is expensive and it’s going to get more expensive as education evolves. Oak Park has better-than-average schools, which means there is room for improvement. Our kids deserve that improvement. Diversity is great, but it makes our challenges more complicated. Complicated means expensive. In a progressive community it should also mean innovative, but that’s another discussion. 

If you want to impose a business model on schools, then we have to do what all successful businesses do: re-invest in order to keep up with the times — and innovate to keep ahead of the times. Old buildings and technology depreciate. We need taxes in order to re-invest.

If you vote NO! what comes next? What’s your plan for achieving educational excellence? Or are you content with “good enough”? Money alone isn’t the solution, but solutions without adequate funding usually don’t get very far.

If you vote yes, will people leave Oak Park? Some will, but they won’t find a more interesting town to live in. And those endorsement interviews I’ve been sitting through for the past 26 years? They included towns like Riverside, Brookfield, North Riverside, Forest Park and even River Forest. All say pretty much the same things. People complain about taxes everywhere you go. I’m sure there are suburbs with lower taxes, but that may mean they’re getting by with less. When it comes to education, you pretty much get what you pay for. Good teachers and principals are expensive because there are fewer of them.

School districts need to get their financial house in order, but what about voters? I know there are things I could do without each year that would easily exceed this tax increase, and I’d be better off for it. If schools need to tighten their belts, shouldn’t we? Doesn’t it work both ways? 

Yes, we need to make taxing bodies accountable for the way they spend our money. We need to know what we’re getting for our taxes. We need representation. We need transparency. Most of all, we need trust in our school boards and administrations.

Taxes are more than legalized pocket-picking by an oppressive, occupying force. Paying taxes is the foundation of responsible citizenship — even more than voting. “Freedom isn’t free.” We’re being asked to citizen-up and make sacrifices for the common good.

Taxes aren’t a necessary evil. They’re just necessary.

No matter how you vote, we need to come to terms with that.