Nobody likes to pay taxes.

Growing up in the 1950s and '60s, I remember my mom saying we did it for the common good: good schools, police and fire protection, clean water and decent roads. Even people without children pay taxes for schools, she said — to keep their property values high and streets safe.

When did this notion unravel? My dad began voting against everything, including schools, claiming, "They waste too much money!" The once-exceptional public schools that educated my brothers and me lost levy after levy, becoming some of the worst in the state. Over time, gangs roamed streets where I walked as a little girl, and the value of my parents' home — after 50 years — budged only a little.

A sea change has swept through our nation's attitudes about taxes since I was young. As we became wealthier, we became stingier. Lots of us find money for "necessities" — huge homes, cellphones, private schools, new cars and huge entertainment centers — but resist being taxed unless it benefits us directly. Never mind our long-term self-interest in making society better, safer. Only what's in front of our noses counts anymore.

One excuse is that government wastes money. Of course it does. What bureaucracy doesn't? There are countless things our governments do on all levels that I abhor. But lack of money has never made any government smarter or more effective, and it never will. Like a car with no gas, it just sits — which is what our state government has been doing for the past 20 years, allowing many important services to wither.

What we have is a 19th-century tax system ill equipped for the 21st. Fairness is key: Who pays and how much? In Washington, the two groups that bear the brunt are businesses (especially small ones) and the poor, while middle- and large-size companies and wealthy households pay the least in proportion to their income. Examples:

Washington has the second-highest reliance on the sales tax in the nation and one of the highest sales-tax rates, William H. Gates Sr. told the state House Finance Committee in January, testifying on the tax study he chaired for the Legislature in 2002. (You can read his Tax Structure Study at dor.wa.gov/content/statistics/WAtaxstudy/Final_Report.htm.)

Businesses pay 46 percent of our state's tax revenues, compared with an average of 30 percent in seven Western states. Among all businesses, those that are new and small — frequently the engine of a growing economy — have a much higher burden than medium and large firms, according to Department of Revenue data.

Washington's tax system is the most regressive in the nation, meaning the wealthiest pay the least in proportion to their income. Families in the poorest 20 percent income group in California, Idaho and Oregon pay between 9 percent and 11 percent of their income in local and state taxes, similar to the wealthiest in those states. But in Washington, the lowest income group pays nearly 18 percent of income on taxes, while the top 1 percent pays less than 4 percent. (Read more at seattletimes.com/news/health/links/taxsystem.pdf.)

No wonder many voters are mad — our system is horribly unfair! In Gates' words to the Legislature, "Our current system is unconscionable and cannot be defended."

A few weeks ago, Gov. Christine Gregoire announced her first two-year budget proposal, surprising many with its generosity to education, health care, children's programs and hospitals. But what didn't survive were programs needed by the frailest of the frail. Three especially important items in the budget:

• Cuts in home-care programs serving people on Medicaid, ending support to all but the most severely disabled. Result: 1,800 people eliminated, saving the state $12 million but adding untold hardships on the many families trying to keep loved ones out of nursing homes.

• No expansion of the dementia-care pilot program that allows people with Alzheimer's on Medicaid to live in assisted-living facilities rather than nursing homes, avoiding costs of $2.4 million.

• No increase in the base rates for adult day services (which haven't seen a raise in 10 years), one of the most critical options for helping severely disabled people to remain at home, avoiding another $2.4 million.

The governor did propose a study of long-term care — which, if it's set up right, could be so important that I testified in Olympia on its behalf.

But the cupboards are otherwise bare for older adults in the governor's budget.

"Given that a budget is a statement of our values," says Jerry Reilly, longtime public-policy consultant, "we have to support the governor and the Legislature in finding additional revenues."

Two options:

• Increase revenue with the estate tax that families must pay on inherited wealth. The governor set the exemption at $2 million. But lowering that to $1 million would still allow many families to avoid taxes — while generating an additional $42 million over the next two years.

• Levy a tax on soda pop. A nickel a can would generate $300 million; a penny a can would bring in $60 million. It makes sense — "a tax on pop for Pop" could bring needed relief to many older people and their families.

But these are temporary fixes. In the long run, we must rebuild our state's tax structure from the bottom up. Washington has the second-fastest aging population in the nation. For all of our sakes, we need a system that taxes equitably and fairly and serves the common good.

Liz Taylor's column runs Mondays in the Northwest Life section. A specialist on aging and long-term care, she consults with individuals and teaches workshops on how to plan for one's aging — and aging parents. E-mail her at growingolder@seattle

times.com or write to P.O. Box 11601, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110.

You can see all of her columns at www.seattletimes.com/growingolder/.