(urth) Gene Wolfe Fans Talk Politics (Again)

[James Wynn]

Adam, in "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:

>Adam sez:
>Of course, "fund it to the same degree," and "robbing from the rich to 
>give to the poor," each themselves admit multiple interpretations.
>One way of "funding it to the same degree" would be to demand a flat 
>amount from each citizen.

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.

>One way would be to impose the same percentage fee on each citizen, 
>regardless of income.  This is usually what Libertarians claim to  like. 
>However, such a plan ignores the (I think fairly important)  observation 
>that the marginal value of money decreases the more of it  you have.

Marginal value decreases for whom? Not to the people who work to earn it. 
You're argument divorces the amount of money made from the people who 
created it. It assumes that a guy making $25K a year is exactly like the guy 
making $250K a year except that one happens to make less. It ignores the 
risks the second guy took in capital, time, and effort in order to create 
that wealth. It also ignores the fact that the first guy gets far more 
BENEFIT from non-essential government services that the second guy. Some 
would say the differences therefore balance out so that both should pay the 
same rate.

The real reason has nothing to do with marginal values of money. It has to 
do with practicality. These services are proposed to get a majority of the 
voting public to like them. So you give out benefits to a larger number and 
have a smaller number pay the freight. No majority will not vote for 95% of 
government services if they are seen as fee-for-service.  You probably 
wouldn't. 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?).

>Hence a third way would be to impose a tax that causes the same amount  of 
>inconvenience at all levels of income.  This is approximately what 
>progressive income taxes attempt to do.

How does a progressive tax provide "the same amount  of inconvenience at all 
levels of income"? Or do you mean "we'll tax you more if you have more and 
we'll do the same to other guy who has more too"? What if we taxed every one 
making $35K-$50K at 95% and everyone else at 15%. Is that equally logical? 
But we don't just tax based on income either, do we? Because this is 
democracy in action. The law-makers cut breaks for certain voting blocks 
(home-owners, parents, college students, and retirees) while busting others 
(cigarette smokers and people who drive for a living).

> "Robbing from the rich to give to the poor," is simply the same  argument 
> stood on its head, of course.  Does taxation go from  "legitimate" to 
> "robbery" at a value derived from the absolute dollar  value of the tax, 
> from a percentage of income across all income  ranges, or to a degree of 
> inconvenience across all income ranges?

How can I describe a progressive tax? 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?

J.