From Taxes to Rights

Let’s imagine for a moment a public school in a rural area, a hospital that treats hundreds of people every day, or a drinking water system that serves a community where families once had to walk kilometers to get water. Now let’s imagine that those services stop functioning because there are no resources to maintain them.

Although we rarely think about it, behind every school, hospital, road, or social program lie fiscal policies that determine where the money comes from and how it is spent.

However, when we talk about human rights, we rarely think about taxes, budgets, or public debt. For a long time, it was believed that human rights belonged to the realm of freedoms, justice, and protection against abuses of power, while taxes were technical matters reserved for economists and finance ministries.

But that separation is, to a large extent, an illusion.

After all, “without resources, there are no rights.” Guaranteeing access to health care, education, housing, and social protection—or even addressing the challenges of climate change—requires public investment. In other words, without sufficient resources, rights risk remaining mere words on paper.

This way of understanding the relationship between taxation and human rights did not emerge overnight. For years, civil society organizations in Latin America have championed the idea that taxes, budgets, and public debt should be analyzed through the lens of human rights. One of the most significant efforts has been the Initiative for Human Rights Principles in Fiscal Policy, promoted by organizations such as Dejusticia, ACIJ, CELS, Fundar, INESC, and the Latin American and Caribbean Fiscal Justice Network.

The goal of this initiative has been simple yet ambitious: to demonstrate that economic policies cannot be designed in isolation from the human rights obligations that states have assumed. Based on this collective work, principles and guidelines were developed to steer fiscal policy toward equality, transparency, citizen participation, and the reduction of inequalities.

This idea has been gaining momentum in various parts of the world in recent years. An increasing number of organizations, academics, and international institutions have begun to ask how decisions regarding taxes, public spending, or debt affect people’s lives. And in 2026, this line of thinking received a significant boost in the Americas with the adoption of Resolution 2/26 on Fiscal Policies and Human Rights by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR).

The resolution is based on the idea that when a State decides who contributes to the financing of public services and how those resources are invested, it is also determining how accessible education will be, who will be able to receive medical care, and which communities will have access to infrastructure and basic services. In other words, fiscal decisions underpin many of the conditions that enable—or limit—the exercise of human rights.

Let’s consider an example. When a country relies primarily on consumption taxes, lower-income families often end up allocating a significant portion of their scarce resources to paying taxes. In contrast, when those with higher incomes or greater wealth contribute more to the financing of public expenditures, the system can help reduce inequalities and create greater opportunities for those who need them most.

But the discussion does not end with tax collection. How those resources are used also matters. A public budget can expand coverage, improve the quality of education, or strengthen health care systems. However, it can also prioritize spending that benefits only a few sectors or interest groups. Therefore, discussing fiscal policy is also about discussing a society’s priorities.

In this context, Resolution 2/26 represents a historic step forward. Rather than creating entirely new obligations, it brings together efforts such as the Initiative on Human Rights Principles in Fiscal Policy and strengthens standards that were previously scattered across various international instruments.

The IACHR notes that States have leeway to define their economic policies, but also emphasizes that these decisions must respect fundamental principles such as equality, non-discrimination, progressivity, and the mobilization of the maximum available resources to guarantee rights.

The resolution also emphasizes something that is often overlooked: fiscal policy must be transparent and open to citizen participation. Decisions about how public funds are collected and spent affect the lives of millions of people and, therefore, should not be left solely in the hands of experts or government authorities.

This perspective helps us better understand why tax evasion, unjustified tax breaks, or certain austerity measures are not merely economic problems. They can also result in fewer resources for social welfare.

Ultimately, the great contribution of organizations like Dejusticia—and of IACHR Resolution 2/26—is to remind us that the realization of human rights depends on fiscal policy decisions, an important yet neglected connection. 

Taxes are not just numbers. The budget is not simply a spreadsheet. Behind every fiscal decision are people who may—or may not—have access to a quality education, timely health care, or a dignified life.

That is why tax justice and social justice are not separate discussions. They are two ways of talking about building more equitable societies committed to the effective guarantee of human rights.