(urth) Urth Digest, Vol 57, Issue 31

[James Wynn]

>I said:
>"The Devil in a Forest", Wolfe presents the issue moral terms. If I'm 
>benefiting from a service more than my neighbor, and also paying less for 
>that service than my neighbor, why is that less shameful than just going to 
>his door and demanding the money?
> Okay. Here are your three options:

>David Stackhoff replied:
>If you keep thinking in terms of your individual, personal,
>exclusive benefit, you will never grasp the concept of the public good.

I understand public good.  I also understand the true meaning of shared 
responsibility, and that there is no free lunch.
Let me re-iterate the analogy I offered in the post you responded to:

"Say five citizens get together to fund
a new well. Hmmm...they could all pay the same amount to dig it, or they
could all pay the same percentage of their wealth, OR....they could vote
that Moe here--who also has a lake on his property so he doesn't need the
well---will pay for half of it because, after all, he can "afford it". How
is that different from a two foxes and a hen voting on what to have for
supper?"

Of course, in a community of five this would never happen. The four would be 
ashamed to force such an arrangement. But --as with Gloin in tDiaF who 
agreed to rob Phillip so long as Phillip would never know it was him--we do 
this all the time in the privacy of the voting booth.

>>I said:
>>This is actually is the most fair way. But, that's asking way too much 
>>fairness from a society of Fallen human beings. On the other hand, if the 
>>poor don't like it, I suppose they could move to Mogadishu.

> Yes, in their yachts.

Well, the Boat People of Vietnam were a lot more destitute than the American 
poor, and somehow managed to pull off something similar.

>You're ignoring the fact that most personal wealth in the US is inherited.
>You're also ignoring racism and classism. And your assumption that the 
>first guy gets more benefit from services
>is unfounded and unproven. _

I do not believe the first statement is true. I'd like to see the numbers to 
back it up. I've heard just the opposite.  Racism is illegal. I'm not sure 
how you gauge classism, but I'm sure I've been as much a victim of it as 
anyone.
As for my assumption, who gets more benefit from a public transportation? 
The top 1% who pay 22% of federal income taxes? The top 5% who pay 60%? Who 
benefits the most from emergency room care? Who benefits the most from 
education subsidies? Who benefits from public shelters, free public schools, 
and Earned Income Tax Credits?

>>I asserted:
>>David Stackhoff implied that he found the idea increased taxes appealing 
>>because he didn't think he'd pay the bulk of them (or any of them?).
>
>I said nothing like that. I said I WANT TO PAY MORE TAXES. I want a bigger, 
>better public "space."

I was drawing from this statement:
>"As a result, I will pay more taxes. I want to pay more taxes.
>Why? Because it's a deal. Because my city is broke. Because I believe in 
>the public good. Because I'm not rich."

I took that to mean you expected to receive more from "the public space" 
than the value of the taxes you were paying. Somebody would have to make up 
that per-person difference. Sorry if I took that wrong.

But, you don't need to pass laws to pay more taxes. Just figure a what 
percentage of your income you are paying now and add 10%. I've never known a 
government to turn down money.

J.