(urth) Urth Digest, Vol 57, Issue 38

Tue May 19 17:34:27 PDT 2009

below, as briefly as possible ...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 18:43:10 -0500
From: "James Wynn" <crushtv at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: (urth) Urth Digest, Vol 57, Issue 31
To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net>
Message-ID: <84EF7CEE69A547A3B2317E899DE09AD7 at eMachinePC>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=response

> >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 still don't think you get the sense of "public" I am referring to. Your scenario has nothing to do with it. It's an intangible---it's not a direct benefit. 

Someone suggested public vs private education as an example, and it's a good one---although sharing of water so that no one goes thirsty would be a good one too, properly handled. When no one dies unnecessarily or goes uneducated, and there are no water riots, everyone benefits, obviously. Imagine a sign over your town that says "___ YEARS SINCE A CIVIL WAR."

A hypothetical town factory owner benefits from public education because he can hire intelligent, educated workers---so he happily pays his share of taxes, and he still gets to smoke his fine cigars and sail his yacht.

Somehow your example gets short-circuited. Where did the part about the lake owner paying more come from? You may as well propose that the tall man eats more apples. It's a non sequitur.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

>> >>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?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Racism is illegal?

What?

Classism, in this case, means "Sure, I can find a spot for your boy on my investment bank team."

Who benefits when thousands of people can get into town BY TRAIN to see a basketball game?

The poor? or the team owner?

Think!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>> >>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.

-----------------------------------------------------------

No. I meant that (even if everyone else earned the same amount and paid the same in taxes) I would still see the benefit of shared space and goods. (By "space" I mean both literal space and figurative or cultural space.) For one thing, there is the economy of scale, as for example when building a rail system, as well as collective bargaining power. How many trains could you build yourself? And it's cheaper than paying for a second car and gas. If I had to pay for everything (everything---think no health insurance) at (free) market rates, my family and I would starve and die. 

------------------------------------------------------------

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.

------------------------------

---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 090519-0, 05/19/2009
Tested on: 5/19/2009 8:34:28 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2009 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com