In politics, there are subjects that can be discussed openly, and subjects people approach more cautiously. At the moment, one of them appears to be taxation.
I noticed this while reading Kuopio’s new council agreement. The agreement states that taxes may only be raised if other measures are not enough to balance the city’s finances.
The wording sounds reasonable. Who would want higher taxes?
Still, I found myself wondering why taxation, of all things, has been singled out.
> Why does a euro paid by a resident become problematic only when it is called a tax?
Why is a tax increase seen as a failure, while cutting services is not? Why does postponing investments feel more acceptable than raising the tax rate? Why does a euro paid by a resident become problematic only when it is called a tax?
A strange moral hierarchy has gradually formed around taxation. A tax increase is seen as a failure, while cutting services or raising fees is easily viewed as a necessity.
At times, this way of thinking resembles the view familiar from the American libertarian tradition, in which taxation is seen first and foremost as a problem rather than as a tool of society.
In the Nordic countries, taxation has traditionally played a different role. It has not been seen as a good or bad thing in itself, but as a means of achieving shared goals.
In municipal finances, however, the alternatives do not disappear. If taxes are not raised, fees are raised. If fees are not raised, services are cut. If services are not cut, more debt is taken on.
Kuopio is aiming for growth, new residents, investments, and better services. That is precisely why it should avoid a kind of politics in which some solutions are ruled out before the problems are even visible.
Because in municipal finances, the bill always comes due.
The only question is whether we dare to say that out loud.