I'd rather be known as a citizen than a taxpayer

With CTV's Power Play droning as background to supper preparation, I heard one of host Don Martin's guests refer to a statement she got in an interview, that prime minister Justin Trudeau doesn't like to refer to Canadians as taxpayers.

I perked up in time to hear he prefers to see us as citizens, and that “taxpayer” is a term referenced most often by the former government of Stephen Harper.

The whole exchange lasted a few seconds and the show's discussion moved on to something much more important, which, hours later, nobody can recall.

But those few seconds stuck, and it's worth talking about the differences in meaning, especially as tax time and a federal budget loom.

We all pay taxes, federally, provincially, municipally. But we should see ourselves — and be recognized — as much more than the suppliers of money to government.

Being merely a taxpayer implies a client relationship with government. Being a citizen implies partnership. If a leader can make that distinction stick in our minds, there's a whole lot more that can be accomplished.

We've had a few decades now of “taxpayer” politics. We even have a national taxpayers federation which by its name claims to represent us as clients of the governments we elect, supposedly, to represent us.

The result has been a better recognition that government must be accountable for the money it collects and spends. But when you look at government as a spender and not a partner, you can see how the connection between government and the people has gotten lost.

We vote — in declining numbers — for governments to have the right to tax us and spend on our behalf. We vote even less nowadays for governments to lead our country, provinces and cities toward a more just, stable and happy society.

The implication is that we “buy” government and its services with our taxes. You can see where that has gone: the rich can buy more than the rest of us. If you buy something, you own it, and it is very easy to notice how big money buys its way in the halls of power.

So if government is something you buy, why vote? The ethos that we are primarily taxpayers means our primary job is mostly just to get the best deal possible for ourselves.

But that should not be the ethos that drives a democracy. The strongest governments — the ones most able to act — are the ones that include us in shared responsibilities. Think of the national unity and shared sacrifices that people made to win victory in two world wars. Think of what was accomplished in the United States under Roosevelt's New Deal.

That's the notion of citizenship in action.

In a previous life, I used to be president of a local nonprofit advocating for people with disabilities. Back then, I often suggested that what my group wanted was “full citizenship.”

People with disabilities want to be full partners in society, not just consumers of assistance provided either by charity or government mandate. Everyone should have something to contribute to the greater good.

Knowing you have civic duties to society at large — and that those duties are a function of both variable ability and resources — makes you a citizen.

When government sees me first as someone working to carry out my civic duties as I perceive them, and not primarily as a taxpayer, then I think we get better government.

If we all thought more along those lines, then our national conversation might be more along the lines of what we can accomplish, than about how much doing something will cost.

Both considerations are important, but the accomplishments should come first.

Therefor, if any elected representative uses the word “taxpayer” less, and “citizen” more, that would be fine by me.