I’m sure if you took a “No duh” poll on taxes in the U.S., you would find an overwhelming majority of us don’t like paying them. Sure, you can find data on whether people think taxes are too high, or if they feel like they are paying too much, but the question of actually enjoying the process of writing a check to the federal or state government (or in some cases, a city government), I’m pretty sure there would be a paucity of good vibes — +/- 3%.

Like I said, it’s a “No duh” poll. But the attitude toward taxes in the U.S. is one that is wrapped up in distrust toward the people spending the money. There’s a certain disconnect between “us” and “them” when it comes to an individual’s connection to the government; and that disconnect is quite pronounced when it comes to taxation.

The 30th anniversary of Prop 13 in California can be seen as something uniquely Californian, but it’s not. Prop 13 (enacted in 1978) was a voter/tax payer initiated grassroots movement of pissed off residents in the Golden State who saw their property tax rates go through the roof as the price of real estate increased. Ah, but if it was just the paying of taxes that was at issue in the drive to make Prop 13 part of the California Constitution. No, when there’s money involved in government, who gets what, and how much, and for what reason is fueled by the clashes of class. Issues of class (and even race) are not really addressed when Prop 13 is discussed. Rather, the usual story of elderly residents losing their homes because of rising property taxes becomes the narrative frame of the history of Prop 13. That’s not to say that wasn’t an issue, it’s just that divorced from the historical forces of the early ‘70s, Prop 13 can seem like populist revolt that only had to do with money.

The scheme prior to Prop 13 was fairly simple: property taxes levied by a county were used to fund public schools in the ZIP codes where the money came from. The state government really didn’t get too involved in the system of funding, since its contribution was less than 40%. It doesn’t take a hell of a lot of logical reasoning to see that under this scheme, the per-pupil spending in school districts around the state showed great variations. Sure, the state provided a minimum of funding for all districts, but the nice “extras” districts flush with money got, were, by and large, confined to ZIP codes where incomes were high. (more…)