(urth) Urth Digest, Vol 57, Issue 31

[David Stockhoff]

Below

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

Message: 4
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 17:06:05 -0500
From: "James Wynn" <crushtv at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: (urth) Gene Wolfe Fans Talk Politics (Again)
To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net>
Message-ID: <BD4FACD5AAA943568DAC238C1E3F3911 at eMachinePC>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=response

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:

-----If you keep thinking in terms of your individual, personal, exclusive benefit, you will never grasp the concept of the public good.

> >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.

-----Yes, in their yachts.

> >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.

-----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. _

_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?).

-----I said nothing like that. I said I WANT TO PAY MORE TAXES. I want a bigger, better public "space."



---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 090519-0, 05/19/2009
Tested on: 5/19/2009 6:20:43 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2009 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com