There’s one thing politicians everywhere seem to love more than kissing babies: tax cuts. Even in a city as progressive as the District, a Councilmember’s eyes light up when the possibility of voting for tax relief is mentioned. And like moths to a light, elected officials find it very difficult to resist the urge to sign on to almost any tax cut.

It’s not that I think taxes should never be reduced. The problem is that elected officials don't seem to be very discriminating about the kinds of tax relief they provide, and they think a lot less about tax decisions than about spending decisions. This year, for example, the DC Council almost adopted some cuts that in effect addressed problems that don’t exist. After a lot of pressure from a lot of advocates, the bad tax cuts were scrapped in favor of better ones, but it was a rare victory.

One of the original proposals was to eliminate the DC estate tax for estates worth $1 million to $3.5 million. (Estates under $1 million already are exempt.) This tax is very divisive politically, with conservatives opposing it as a "death tax" and liberals defending it as one of the most progressive tax sources. In a politically progressive city with a yawning rich-poor gap, it is not clear why a tax cut for well-to-do estates reached the top of the list. Some claimed that rich people are fleeing DC to avoid this tax, but they offered no evidence – and available research says it's not happening in any noticeable way.

The other early proposal was to cap property tax increases for homeowners at 5 percent per year instead of the current 10 percent. Not surprisingly, this had a lot of popular appeal – it helps all homeowners, right? But proponents ignored the fact that recent tax changes have made DC’s homeowner taxes the lowest in the Washington region. Plus, about two-thirds of DC homeowners are paying less in property taxes this year than they did two years ago, despite leaping assessments. The property tax cap proponents also failed to note that about 60 percent of DC households rent and would not benefit at all – and by the way, they also tend to be lower income than homeowners.

There were some other crazy ideas that got in the mix. A proposal to give a $10,000 income tax deduction to residents with a DC or federal pension drew some support, apparently because any tax cut for "seniors" is good. But I asked, why should someone with a DC pension and $50,000 income pay less in taxes than someone with a $50,000 job or someone with a $50,000 private pension? I didn't get an answer.

While all this was going on, more serious tax issues were overlooked. Take the fact, for example, that DC’s tax system is regressive, with lower-income households devoting a higher percentage of income to taxes than higher-income families. It stems mainly from the sales tax, which you may be surprised to hear is one of the most regressive taxes. While everyone pays the same rate, low- and moderate-income people spend nearly all the income they take in, much of it on taxable goods, while more upper-income folks do not. Another important DC tax issue that was overlooked: while DC’s income tax includes some sizable credits for very low income families, moderate-income families pay more in income tax than in nearly all states.

That’s why advocates pushed for tax relief targeting renters and moderate-income working families, such as an increase in the income tax's standard deduction. Renters generally are the ones who claim the standard deduction, since they don't have a mortgage they can itemize.

In the end, the council rejected the estate tax cut and the 5 percent property tax cap. Instead, the budget for next year has a balanced tax relief package, including a property tax rate cut for homeowners, an increase in the standard deduction, and relief for small businesses, which have not gotten any tax relief lately.

In a city that must balance its budget each year, tax decisions need to be considered seriously. The effect of a tax cut on the budget is really no different from an increase in spending on libraries, police or whatever. A $10 million tax cut uses up $10 million in available resources just as a $10 million police force expansion would.

So tax relief should not be handed out willy-nilly, and we shouldn’t have the attitude that any tax cut is a good thing – just as more spending on any program is not necessarily a good thing. Every time a tax cut is proposed, someone needs to ask: Will it meet an identified need in an efficient way? Are there better tax relief options? Might it be better to invest in services that improve DC’s quality of life rather than cutting taxes?

Of course, all budget decisions are political and reflect responses to vocal and persistent advocacy. It would be nice to think, however, that tax policy debates should at least start with a discussion of ways to make the tax system better, including making it less regressive.