When was the last time you ever heard someone say something good about taxes? We don't literally tar and feather our tax collectors anymore, but in our rhetoric we do much the same thing. And in recent decades it has often been incumbent politicians, nominally empowered to do something about it, who've led the chorus of complaints.

Empathizing with Hoosiers over the evils of taxes, and in particular property taxes, has been a sure-fire applause line around the state for years, but the failure of leaders to actually deliver meaningful change has made the act start to wear thin. Unfortunately, the overly simplistic logic used in most tax-bashing tirades has done little to prepare the electorate for the real issues involved with comprehensive tax reform.

Thus we hear, for example, that the property tax is excessively harsh on farmers and should be reduced or eliminated, and that applying state sales taxes to internet commerce will kill or greatly curtail a promising new industry. With one's own tax bill on the line, such arguments quickly become very emotional. But a moment of rational reflection makes one realize that there must also be something desirable about these tax instruments that helps explain their longevity.

The starting point for a rational discussion of taxes must be a recognition that government at all levels requires funds to operate. There is ample ammunition to fuel a debate over size, role, and growth of government, but there is a practical limit on the cuts that can be made. This is particularly so for local governments that provide roads, public safety, and education.

In an environment where there are no "free" tax cuts, there is something to be said for Indiana's "three-legged stool" of roughly equal tax receipts from property, income and sales taxes. Each tax has its advantages and drawbacks, and reliance on all three gives the state and its localities some insulation from the negative aspects of each.

The rarely mentioned advantages of the property tax are nonetheless hard to deny. The elements of the tax base -- land, structures, and business plant and equipment -- are usually hard to move, thus the tax is difficult to avoid, at least in the short run. Its revenue stream is relatively reliable, enabling government to make longer term commitments. And there is at least an approximate relationship between the size and value of one's property and the amount of local public services consumed.

Many of the beefs that we have with the property tax are really over the way that our state carries it out, not with the tax itself. The fact that tax rates can drastically change from year to year with little voter input makes taxpayers feel helpless. The fact that tax liabilities can grow even as ability to pay shrinks makes the tax especially burdensome for some. And Indiana's peculiar process of assessment -- now acknowledged by all to be unconstitutional -- lends an air of arbitrariness and unfairness that goes down hard.

Should local government's reliance on this tax be eliminated or drastically scaled back? That may be the only feasible political solution. But reducing the take from property taxes creates problems as well. And we should realize that remedies for the harshest aspects of Indiana's system abound. Tax rates in Ohio are subject to approval in local referenda. Michigan employs a "circuit breaker" in its property tax to reduce liabilities for those with modest income. And 48 other states use market value as the basis for tax assessment, which can at the very least be understood.

We haven't fundamentally changed our proper