Subject:
|
Re: A question for my Canadian pals
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 6 Oct 2004 21:46:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1450 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > The computer you're using is descended from publicly funded technology for which
> > you have not paid but from which you are reaping the benefit; this is income
> > redistribution that favors you.
>
> I could argue the point that in fact I (and my parents) paid more into the
> system than we have benefited from it, and I could do so for every example you
> cite, I think, if I chose to do so. (as a sketch, for the first one, the
> computer's technology is only part of the cost of the computer, not the entire
> cost, and the share of the technology that was directly publicly funded is
> rather small. Most of the value of the computer is due to MS and Intel and other
> corporate scientists)
But underlying technology is only one aspect. If any of the designers (at MS,
Intel, or wherever) went to a public school or received a government grant for
college or for subsequent research, then you are benefitting from public money.
I would be interested to see how you have paid more, over time, than you have
benefited, in the aggregate.
> But I see what you're getting at so I choose not to do so in detail. I note that
> you haven't proven that I get more benefit than I paid in, though.
Sorry--it didn't occur to me that that was the goal, but it makes sense.
I'll try to assemble something for tomorrow--I'm about to leave the office for
the night.
> The quibble turns on the meaning of "require". You say that because I use goods
> for which a completely private alternative does not exist, I am "require"-ing
> others to pay for them on my behalf.
>
> I make no such "requirement". Instead I freely choose from those goods that are
> provided to me. It's not my fault that your ilk have rentseeked the private
> alternatives out of existance.
"Rentseeked?" Yikes!
And leave my ilk out of this, unless your UPS guy has an ilk-hunting license.
I think you're right, though, that we're differing re: "requirement." I take
your use of these goods/services as your tacit acceptance of redistributed
income, but you seem to propose that, since you have no alternative, then you
aren't actually able to accept or decline. Is this a correct paraphrase?
> > You might argue that these uses of public funds are inappropriate, but you still
> > enjoyed (and continue to enjoy) the benefits of them. Therefore you are
> > benefiting from income redistribution.
>
> No. I am not benefitting, I am paying.
How so? If you choose to dine at an out-of-state restaurant, for example, then
you are benefitting from others' tax payments to which you have not equivalently
contributed, are you not?
> Only if I have paid less into the system, actuarially, and from a net present
> value perspective, than the goods are worth have I so benefitted, except as a
> negative benefit. (so for example, even if I live to be 95 and collect
> everything currently projected to come to me from Social Security, my payments
> into Social Security are a net negative benefit using present value calculations
> and market rate of interest)
I'm not sure, but it seems as though you're speaking of a single, federal tax
system while omitting the "public" nature of state and local taxes from which
you may have benefited without contributing. Even if you've paid $1000.00 into
your own tax system while reclaiming only $500.00 in benefit, then you're only
at a net loss in your own tax system. You're at a net gain in the neighboring
tax system from which you have reaped, say, $10.00 worth of benefit while
contributing zero.
Compartmentalized, I know, but in the examples at hand it's either that or fully
federalized tax (or the currently hypothetical zero tax rate or pay-as-you-go).
> I think the onus would be on you to show that I, specifically, haven't paid less
> in than I get out. I pay much more in taxes than the average citizen does. In
> any income redistribution scheme, someone's income is being redistributed, and
> in this case, it's me.
Well, it's tough for me to show this without seeing your tax returns, of course.
I would say that, in general, the wealthier members of the US economy have long
had the benefits of income redistribution from the poor. Maybe this isn't true
in your case, but I'm not really interested in the one-man-island structure of
this argument. I'm more interested in addressing the system overall, since we
can trade anecdotal "more heavily taxed than thou" stories all day long.
> To your specific examples that I snipped, I typically pay a 30% or more tax on
> the rental when I drive on non Michigan roads, which more than covers the wear
> and tear I place on them, and I pay whatever the restaurant charges when
> presented the bill, so that covers the cost of inspections, and then some.
The inspections, perhaps, but not the maintenance of the agency that conducts
the inspections. Again, you may argue that the agency has no valid charter and
therefore shouldn't exist, but it does exist, and you've enjoyed the benefits of
it.
We're running dangerously close to the falacy of the receding target, by the
way.
> I'm perfectly willing to posit that *you've* benefitted from income
> redistribution, but not that *I* have. Hence your rentseeking behaviour. As a
> beneficiary, you want the largesse to continue. As a payer, I don't.
A fair supposition, but I don't believe that it's any more a correct assessment
of my relation to the system than of yours.
> > > > It also includes any costs resulting from
> > > > injury he inflicts upon another person in that society.
> > >
> > > You wouldn't hold that person responsible for those costs to the maximum extent
> > > possible?
> >
> > If he himself is destitute and can't pay, then sure. But if the costs of the
> > victim's care greatly exceed the aggressor's ability to reimburse, then what?
>
> Why would you not want to hold the aggressor responsible? I don't think you
> answered that yet.
I don't think I did, either. Oops.
Sure, I'd hold the aggressor responsible, but what form should that
responsibility take if he has no means to reimburse the victim or the victim's
survivors? If it's a pure dollars-and-cents reimbursement framework, then
there's some incentive, if motivated to revenge, to divest yourself of all
personal holdings (by incorporating, for example), and then personally beat up
anyone you'd care to beat up. Some non-financial incentive seems to be
required.
> > > Wouldn't that encourage people to go around beating others up?
> >
> > Maybe, if the requirement of financial restitution were the only deterrent. It
> > seems to me that other preventative measures exist, though.
>
> It would either (absent of other incentives/deterrents) encourage or discourage
> or have exactly no effect. I say encourage. Do you say discourage?
I say that it would, in itself, have little effect one way or the other.
Exactly no effect? That's a tall order, so I'll give myself a margin of error
in one direction or the other.
> If I can opt out, I will.
I believe that you would, but you can't. That's the whole point, IMO. As a
member of this society, you are enmeshed in it beyond your ability to extricate
yourself from its requirements as long as you wish to remain a part of it.
I'm not well-versed in Rand's work; doesn't she argue somewhere that hthere's no
such thing as "society?" Forgive me if that's be a bad paraphrase of her
argument...
> As long as it's feasible to set up enough of a society
> that I can get by without the public system. But that's hard. Why not just
> stipulate that there needs to be a contribution to the UPS driver's health care
> costs (assuming he's in and I am not) by me commensurate with the value that the
> UPS driver gave me in delivering the package, and the time that I interacted
> with him(1). Something like a fee or tax on the package delivery charge, for
> example. Once that's paid, my further obligation to him is discharged.
Does that seem like a more efficient system, in the aggregate, or is it simply
more agreeable to your bottom line? I can't accept that the moment-by-moment of
risk calculations, for every person with whom you interact, are more fiscally
sound than a single contribution, calculated once (annually, or whatever).
> > One can argue that this is an infinite regress, but that's how it goes. Members
> > of a society are bound into that society as long as they receive benefits from
> > it. As long as you continue to use your computer, for instance, you are part of
> > the society of beneficiaries of US public funding.
>
> While technically a beneficiary, it seems that you want to require me to pay
> whatever you specify, forever, for some putative small dollar amount benefit I
> received long in the past. Why would I want that deal?
Because you might need it, conceivably. If some hypothetical mischance befell
you and your family thereby totally wiping out your assets, and you learned that
your son required an expensive a life-saving medical procedure that you could
only attain through public largesse, would you accept this largesse? This is a
hypothetical, so there are no wealthy family members or friends to pay on your
son's behalf, and I'm stipulating that you can't secure a loan since you have no
assets in this example.
> > > More seriously, why? Why not address the corporate lawbreakers directly instead
> > > of enabling other slackers?
> >
> > Hey, one windmill at a time, please!
>
> But you seem to want to build *another* windmill here rather than tear down that
> one... that seems wrong.
Out of time--let me answer this part tomorrow.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: A question for my Canadian pals
|
| (...) Have you thought through to the logical conclusion of the path you're following? The logical conclusion is that there should be no private money at all. But then that raises an interesting question: Who decides what is reasonable to spend (...) (20 years ago, 6-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: A question for my Canadian pals
|
| (...) Only insofar as THEY derived a benefit... if what they paid in taxes covered the education services they received, then no... in fact one could argue that I ought to get a credit in my accounting if what they paid was more. But this could (...) (20 years ago, 7-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: A question for my Canadian pals
|
| (...) I could argue the point that in fact I (and my parents) paid more into the system than we have benefited from it, and I could do so for every example you cite, I think, if I chose to do so. (as a sketch, for the first one, the computer's (...) (20 years ago, 6-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
24 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
