LIAM MURPHY AND THOMAS NAGEL Taxes , Redistribution , and Public Provision

Our aim in this paper is to introduce and defend a distinction that is often blurred in public debate about tax policy, and whose recognition would clarify the relation between disputes about taxes and disputes about social justice. Political conservatives usually argue for lower taxes on the ground that they are against big government. They often favor the reduction of government-run and government-Wnanced programs, arguing that we know better what to do with our money than the government does. Leaving as much disposable income as possible in the hands of private individuals is better for society, according to this view, than extracting it for expenditure by the state through collective political decisions. Liberals, on the other hand, argue that action by government is necessary to advance social justice, and that substantial taxes are needed to provide the resources that should be used toward that end. But there are two diVerent issues here. One is about the size of government, and the use of taxes to support government-run programs. The other is about distributive justice, and the use of taxes to reduce socioeconomic inequality. An argument against big government is not necessarily an argument for lower taxes, since taxes may be used to promote distributive justice directly without being spent on public programs. The position we take is this: Tax policy should be evaluated in light of a broader concern for social justice in the society as a whole. In our view— although we will not assume or try to defend it here—this does not include any requirement of respect for natural property rights. Taxes do