Is tax justice possible?

As the incomes of laborers and other low- and middle-income citizens erode, the concept of tax justice is frequently bandied about as a significant remedy. While I believe with all my heart in social justice or income justice, I personally do not believe in tax justice within the capitalist system, nor can I ever imagine that bourgeois governments could make a sincere effort in this regard. The reason for my such rigid skepticism is my belief that the erosion of income for a segment of the society and their drift toward deepening poverty is not solely a tax issue, and that the path to stopping and reversing this painful trend does not lie in the realm of taxation. Having expressed my sincere thoughts with such firm judgments, let us now briefly discuss the subject within the space of this page.

Dear friends, as for the political cadre responsible for tax regulations—that is, the government—I can say with great certainty that since both the government and the tax structure are superstructure institutions and practices of the implemented economic system, and since the government cannot act independently of the system's dynamics—namely, its pro-capital bias—I believe that expecting an improvement in the tax system is a complete fantasy. I can almost see these two questions coming to mind: First, how is it that a more reasonable tax system can be implemented in developed economies than in ours? Second, if this is the case, why are constitutions adorned with such reasonable provisions, and why are subjects like tax justice instilled into young minds in universities? Are all these empty and meaningless appearances? Unfortunately, yes! All these glittering legal provisions and activities in universities are political maneuvers that serve the system, softening it to some extent, legitimizing it, and creating social consent.

We can discuss the answers to these questions after laying out the logic of the system. Dear friends, the identity of the system is, as its name implies, capitalism. That is, while the dominant decision-making and executive organ of the system appears to be the political power, it is not; it is capital. When capital is the focus of power and decision-making, it is obvious that every public decision will be in favor of capital and against labor. Such being the case, the boundaries of action are narrowing. In two cases, these boundaries can be expanded to allow society to breathe relatively easily. One is that the economy has completed its stage of development; the other, linked to the first, is that income distribution is quite balanced. This means that even if the same tax structure as an advanced country is applied, final tax justice remains controversial in developing economies where the general income level is low and income distribution is distorted. In other words, even if the tax structure looks fair on paper, the result in practice—in terms of the distribution of the tax burden—becomes unjust due to extreme income inequality. To put the matter in more technical terms, let me explain the situation as follows: The contribution rates of different income groups to the national income and their contribution rates to total tax revenue develop in opposite directions; in other words, the tax pressure rises in lower income brackets and is reflected as relatively low in higher income brackets. The reason for this is that with the advancement of capitalism, income and wealth concentrate and deepen in certain segments. Specifically, as a smaller number of people obtain an increasingly larger share of income, while a large number of people obtain a relatively small share, per capita income among low-income earners declines, and they reach a position where they almost lose their tax capacity. On the other hand, although high-income earners face quite high tax rates as they are very wealthy, the burden on this segment remains relatively light and insufficient to meet the public's revenue requirements. The cause of this situation is not a flaw in the tax system, but a flaw in income distribution. Income distribution inequality cannot be corrected with severely high taxes, and as I mentioned above, governments, as agents of capital, cannot impose abnormally high taxes on the wealthy segment. Let us never forget that one of the most obvious characteristics of the capitalist system is that if wealth is concentrated in a certain segment within the system, the pressure of this segment on governments is equally high. That is, the wealthy segment's power to resist taxation is higher than that of the poor segment, because as the wealthy segment gets richer, its power to avoid paying taxes also increases.

The conclusion of this brief explanation shows us that talking about and complaining about the tax system in the context of alleviating the injustices experienced is not a solution in itself, and such attempts can even serve as a system-protective function with a counter-effect. Focusing solely on the tax system without emphasizing the system itself does not highlight the essence of the matter; it keeps individuals away from the system, leading to the illusion that only the tools can be changed and that important issues can be solved through such artificial changes. However, since the solution lies in the system, an operation solely on the tools cannot be useful in solving the problems, but rather contributes to the survival of the system and ensures the continuation of injustices. Given this situation, it is necessary to think about the issue in the context of the system. Systems are holistic organisms. To think that results can be achieved in such organisms through partial changes that can be made only to some tools, without going for radical changes, is, to put it mildly, a lack of methodology.