Indiana Policy Review Weighs in on Governor’s Property Tax Reform Plans

Oct. 26, 2007
The Indiana Tax Debate

By Craig Ladwig

OK. We’ve read the governor’s tax-reform proposal and we’re bracing ourselves for the counter proposals, which, apparently, will drone on until 2010 or beyond, through at least two general assemblies and a statewide election on a constitutional amendment.

So forgive us if we keep falling into a scene from “Brazil,” the classic dystopic comedy by Terry Gilliam:

“A receptionist is seen casually transcribing an off-screen conversation,” begins the Wikipedia review. “When interrupted by the main character, she tilts her headphones off of her ears, allowing us to hear the pained sounds of someone undergoing severe torture. After cheerfully addressing the main character, she continues to dutifully record the nearly unintelligible pleas and screams.”

Our pain as Indiana taxpayers is being transcribed by officials similarly determined to maintain decorum, in this case the bipartisan etiquette of revenue neutrality. The screams of the actual economy are barely audible. And as was the case with Gilliam’s receptionist, the villains are neither malicious nor sadistic — they are merely doing their jobs.

This tone was set early last summer when it was suggested that the Indiana taxpayers who took to the governor’s lawn had overreacted. The government, we were assured, would be happy to “loan” us back our money to pay the burgeoning tax bills.

Problem solved; treasury saved.

Taxpayers, though, were not assured. A casual poll of the Indiana Policy Review Foundation’s membership in August found that more than 77 percent were either “disappointed” or “very disappointed” in the reaction of their elected representative. The poll, conducted since 1995, had never recorded such high negative numbers on any issue.

One senator addressed the continued unrest with what could be called a government game — an interactive spreadsheet that invited citizens to try their hand at the process of governing. The game, however, had no card or die or spinner for eliminating useless programs. If one tax were lowered, the rules simplistically required, another had to be raised.

Come October, Indiana politicians had been forced to at least feign concern for how this game might affect those unfortunate enough not to hold high office, i.e., the hapless owners of businesses and homes outside the Indianapolis government compound.

But in reviewing the plans now on the table comes a troubling realization: The tax system that American colonists found unbearable to the point of revolution was a better deal. One can imagine a modern-day blogging Jefferson exhorting his Internet visitors to “throw off such government, and to provide new guards for your future security . . .”

For King George III was just another official protecting another treasury. But in contrast he only asked the colonists to pay a user tax on paper, glass and tea to defray the cost of defending North America from the French and the Indians.

Our taxes today tend to be more confiscatory, not less. It is even arguable, considering the power of gerrymandered incumbency and multi-issue legislation, whether we enjoy the full democratic representation that the Revolution promised. And the great bulk of our tax money is spent not on roads, bridges or infrastructure but on perpetual “wars” of doubtful outcome — against shifting political definitions of poverty, ignorance, poor health.

George, only fractionally more arrogant and ensconced than today’s rulers, at least won the war in whose name he taxed.

T. Craig Ladwig is editor of the Indiana Policy Review.