jh Wrote:Sometimes you have to have a critical mass in order for something to have a chance at being effective. If that mass is not acheived, then it is pointless to make individual sacrifices in its name. They aren't willing to pay more unless it is likely to make a difference.

If it has to make a difference before they will do it, then it is not a stand on principle.

These (generally speaking)are the people who were willing to be among the first to drive a hybrid in a sea of SUVs. They didn't require everyone to drive a hybrid before they would. They wanted to make a small difference, even though they, by themselves, ould not make a significant dent in the problem.

These are the people who were willing to put up solar panels and otherwise "green up their lives" when they couldn't see the horizon for the smog. They didn't wait for everyone to be required to do the same. They did this willingly, even though they did not have the numbers to make a difference. They led by example.

These are the people who switched to organic foods without requiring everyone else to do so before they would.

Etc., etc., etc.

So why must they wait for everyone to contribute more money before they will? Why is this the one exception to leading by example?

Money matters are looked at differently.

When it comes to money things, nobody wants overpay. Nobody wants to acknowledge they paid too much for their r, their house, their insurance, their taxes. Nobody wants to acknowledge they sold an asset too cheaply or invested at a too-low rate. There is no enhancement to one's reputation for "wasting" money. What are the sayings? A fool and his money are soon parted". "Penny wise pound foolish". "Sell ones birthright for a mess of porridge"? Nobody wants to be thought of as a fool.

JMHO

Perhaps it is just that money matters are looked at differently. I've seen studies where people will choose for neither party to receive a benefit rather than to receive a small benefit while the other party gets a larger benefit that they consider unfair. I do believe that this can play a part in this cost/benefit analysis.

In the other examples, there are also tangible benefits, along with the smug factor, which might be enough to outweigh their respective costs (lower fuel costs with hybrids & solar panels, techno geek factor with hybrids, health/taste benefits with organic food, etc.). In the case of paying additional taxes, the only benefit would be the smug factor, and that's apparently just not enough. Working against the smug factor is that paying taxes is a private affair, hard to demonstrate & harder to verify. If you pull up to a party in a hybrid car, it's obvious that you do so. If you pull out your tax return at that same party to demonstrate that you paid additional taxes, well, you probably aren't going to many parties if you do that.

But I've gone on too much about this already. It's hard to speak for people whose values I don't share (personally, I consider the vast majority of taxation to be immoral & would never consider paying a dime more than I have to) and I'm probably not doing a good job. I'm just trying to point out that there are possible reasons for behaviours which don't require us to consider half the population to be hypocrites at best.

jh Wrote:Perhaps it is just that money matters are looked at differently. I've seen studies where people will choose for neither party to receive a benefit rather than to receive a small benefit while the other party gets a larger benefit that they consider unfair. I do believe that this can play a part in this cost/benefit analysis.

In the other examples, there are also tangible benefits, along with the smug factor, which might be enough to outweigh their respective costs (lower fuel costs with hybrids & solar panels, techno geek factor with hybrids, health/taste benefits with organic food, etc.). In the case of paying additional taxes, the only benefit would be the smug factor, and that's apparently just not enough. Working against the smug factor is that paying taxes is a private affair, hard to demonstrate & harder to verify. If you pull up to a party in a hybrid car, it's obvious that you do so. If you pull out your tax return at that same party to demonstrate that you paid additional taxes, well, you probably aren't going to many parties if you do that.

But I've gone on too much about this already. It's hard to speak for people whose values I don't share (personally, I consider the vast majority of taxation to be immoral & would never consider paying a dime more than I have to) and I'm probably not doing a good job. I'm just trying to point out that there are possible reasons for behaviours which don't require us to consider half the population to be hypocrites at best.

Well, jh, we are really pretty much in agreement. I quibble a bit with your last sentence. I don't think half the population is hypocritical - just the ones who think they aren't paying their "fair" share, but refuse to do so until they can make everybody pay their "fair" share. (and of course, only their opinion of what is fair is important). I do think that over half of the population are subscribers to the "No-skin-off-my-nose theory of social justice, which basically reads, if the tax doesn't hit me, what do I care? It can be fair, unfair, good, bad, whatever, if it doesn't hit me, it's fine. Almost half of Americans pay no taxes, but they can vote on the guys who make tax policy.

Have you seen my signature?

I'm trying to see this one from the other side. I would assume those who are opposed to tax increases (and/or are in favor of tax decreases) are also in favor of the government providing both lesser and fewer services. (I come to that assumption by assuming that no one is in favor of continued deficit spending).

So what moral stands should we be expecting from the lower-taxes side of the debate? Refusal to drive on public roads (thereby decreasing congestion and the need for government spending)? Running their own war on drugs? Flying to the middle east on their own dime to protect our oil interests with their own bullets?
Since we're not seeing such stands, I suppose those people might be hypocrites. But that may be too simple; they may just be shortsighted and want the most $ in THEIR pockets -- rest of the country be damned.

OR this whole debate could be pointless ideological hyperbole obscuring the main issue, which is the fact that there's an inherent tension between wanting services and not wanting to pay for them. I think debate on the specifics is healthy (which programs should be expanded? which should be cut? how should the tax burden be distributed?). I would bet that reasonable people engaged in such a debate would find that there's a great deal of common ground -- most want the least money to be collected for the greatest good. The details, of course, are where it gets hairy. But also where it gets interesting.

[edited a bit for clarity]

JOwl Wrote:I'm trying to see this one from the other side. I would assume those who are opposed to tax increases (and/or are in favor of tax decreases) are also in favor of the government providing both lesser and fewer services. (I come to that assumption by assuming that no one is in favor of continued deficit spending).

So what moral stands should we be expecting from the lower-taxes side of the debate? Refusal to drive on public roads (thereby decreasing congestion and the need for government spending)? Running their own war on drugs? Flying to the middle east on their own dime to protect our oil interests with their own bullets?
Since we're not seeing such stands, I suppose those people might be hypocrites. But that may be too simple; they may just be shortsighted and want the most $ in THEIR pockets -- rest of the country be damned.

OR this whole debate could be pointless ideological hyperbole obscuring the main issue, which is the fact that there's an inherent tension between wanting services and not wanting to pay for them. I think debate on the specifics is healthy (which programs should be expanded? which should be cut? how should the tax burden be distributed?). I would bet that reasonable people engaged in such a debate would find that there's a great deal of common ground -- most want the least money to be collected for the greatest good. The details, of course, are where it gets hairy. But also where it gets interesting.

[edited a bit for clarity]

No kidding.... some of the Fulton County Commissioners vilify me as one of the “racist ringleaders” out to separate the affluent Northern suburbs of Fulton County from relatively “property poor” Southern Fulton County and create a “new County for the rich people."

Nothing could be further from the truth. What I do want is to separate North Fulton County from the inefficiency and corruption that these County Commissioners exercise on a daily basis. And just isn’t the Caucasians out to form a new County… its everyone who lives in the area that is tired of being the “personal piggybank” to fund these crooked SOB’s.

I pay taxes out the wazoo and what do I get for it?

Zilch.

Traffic up here is like the rush hour of the Galleria—for 15 hours a day. You need a road built/expanded… it takes forever to get approval, and then the contractor building it (who is the buddy of the Commissioner) F’s the job up (no kidding… they didn’t put in a quarter of the rebar before they started to pour concrete).. and then the County doesn’t want to fix it to cover their own asses.

I then embarrass and humiliate the corrupt Commissioner, and then the thug sends his minions (the Atlanta equivalent of Quannel X) out to call me a racist.

All I want to do is make sure there is efficient spending of government tax money. Throwing the corrupt SOB out in an election is not an option, because all that will do is put another crook from South Fulton County into office.

JOwl Wrote:the main issue, which is the fact that there's an inherent tension between wanting services and not wanting to pay for them.

What about the people who don't want the services but are being required to pay for them? What about the people who are getting the services but aren't being asked to pay for them? I think it is is reasonable to assume those two groups would have different perspectives. What about the people who want the services but don't like being required to pay not only for themselves but several other citizens as well, since those others don't pay taxes?

To echo another poster, "I pay taxes out the wazoo and what do I get for it"?

Taxes, at some level, are a necessary evil, and are meant to finance the things that are impractical for individuals to do - wage war, provide police protection, etc. - pretty much the example you gave all fall in this category. I would feel much better about paying my taxes if i was only asked to pay my "fair share". I would feel better about it if i were not vilified for disagreeing on what my "fair share" is. I would feel better about it if I were not being lied to about tax changes.

I support a change from an income tax to a consumption tax. Then we would all be paying our "fair share". Every person would be a taxpayer, not just 53% of us. Every person would be concerned with how their tax dollars were being spent, because every person would not want the tax rate increased. Every person would have an interest in their representatives controlling spending, and the Congress would find it more difficult to spend foolishly and more difficult to raise taxes. I think if everyone is paying taxes in the same way and in the same category, all this class warfare would melt away and we would all just be concerned taxpayers.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:What about the people who don't want the services but are being required to pay for them? What about the people who are getting the services but aren't being asked to pay for them? I think it is is reasonable to assume those two groups would have different perspectives. What about the people who want the services but don't like being required to pay not only for themselves but several other citizens as well, since those others don't pay taxes?

Yep, I think that's all part of the debate over which services should be provided and how the burden should be distributed. And certainly, people in different situations will have different opinions.

Some random specifics:
- Personally, I (no longer) personally benefit from public schools, since I'm past college and childless. But I feel that they benefit society as a whole, and therefore me indirectly, and therefore I'm in favor of taxes going to public schools.

- However, I'm against spending our money on the war in Iraq. I feel we'd be much better off putting that same money toward alternative energy solutions, which if they pan out would dramatically decrease our level of interest in the middle east.

- As for apportioning the tax burden, I'm for taxation that is somewhat progressive with income. I too like the idea of replacing the income tax with a sales tax; the proposals of the FAIR Tax people (which includes a "prebate" that automatically cuts a check each family an amount equal to the tax on poverty-level spending, regardless of that family's actual consumption) seem simple and equitable, although I do doubt a few of their claims (e.g. I'd bet the transition would be a complete clusterf*ck... but worth it). The "prebate" makes the sales tax progressive on spending, which at the end of day makes more sense to me than being progressive on earnings (although in any event one is probably a pretty good proxy for the other in most cases).

JOwl Wrote:OR this whole debate could be pointless ideological hyperbole obscuring the main issue,
[edited a bit for clarity]

Uncovering the ideology at the root of a policy is ideological, but it is not pointless and it is not hyperbole.

If tax advocates are reluctant to lead by example because they don't like the way government would spend their extra contribution -- well, that's exactly the reason why taxation should be viewed reluctantly, not with glee. To say "I would pay more taxes if the money would be used the way I think it should" is to say "I don't generally trust government to spend the money the way I want", which is to say "I do not view tax increases as an inherently good thing." There is indeed a huge amount of common ground there.

Public education is a great example. I believe that public money should be used to deliver effective education, which benefits society as a whole. However, it is not all clear that public schools are the best way to meet that goal. In many cases, it's not at all clear that even come very close to meeting that goal. And even if public schools are the best vehicle, it is not at all clear that aggregate funding is their chief problem. Those debates are not primarily about taxation.

If tax advocates are reluctant to lead by example simply because they want to keep their own money -- well, that is a very human, garden-variety hypocrisy. In a political sense, such hypocrisy may be irrelevant, since people of all stripes seem to object mainly (and indignantly) to hypocrisy among those they already disagree with, and to tolerate (or even defend) a great deal of hypocrisy among those they agree with.

But for at least some of the tax advocates in our midst, it would appear that tax increases are seen as an inherent good, and that confiscation from the so-called undeserving is a goal in and of itself. The reason they don't lead by example is not reluctance, but self-definition: they themselves, by virtue of being enlightened tax advocates, are by definition not part of the "undeserving" from whom money must be confiscated. The undeserving are 'others', a category that includes neither the tax advocate nor his audience but is still a large nefarious group. It is not a question of leading the followers, it is a question of indentifying and punishing an enemy. This stance is related to the notion "I would prefer that nobody gets a raise than that I get a $5 raise while my neighbor gets $6" -- which in the abstract is merely perverse, but when coupled with the power of coercive confiscation is quite troubling. The stance is rooted in ideology -- one which is repugnant and scary. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that subscribers to that ideology should not govern the country.

JOwl Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:What about the people who don't want the services but are being required to pay for them? What about the people who are getting the services but aren't being asked to pay for them? I think it is is reasonable to assume those two groups would have different perspectives. What about the people who want the services but don't like being required to pay not only for themselves but several other citizens as well, since those others don't pay taxes?

Yep, I think that's all part of the debate over which services should be provided and how the burden should be distributed. And certainly, people in different situations will have different opinions.

Some random specifics:
- Personally, I (no longer) personally benefit from public schools, since I'm past college and childless. But I feel that they benefit society as a whole, and therefore me indirectly, and therefore I'm in favor of taxes going to public schools.

- However, I'm against spending our money on the war in Iraq. I feel we'd be much better off putting that same money toward alternative energy solutions, which if they pan out would dramatically decrease our level of interest in the middle east.

- As for apportioning the tax burden, I'm for taxation that is somewhat progressive with income. I too like the idea of replacing the income tax with a sales tax; the proposals of the FAIR Tax people (which includes a "prebate" that automatically cuts a check each family an amount equal to the tax on poverty-level spending, regardless of that family's actual consumption) seem simple and equitable, although I do doubt a few of their claims (e.g. I'd bet the transition would be a complete clusterf*ck... but worth it). The "prebate" makes the sales tax progressive on spending, which at the end of day makes more sense to me than being progressive on earnings (although in any event one is probably a pretty good proxy for the other in most cases).

With you on a and c. Of course the first thing that would happen is that the prebate would be rescinded for taxpayers making more than ($250K, 175K, 83.5K, 32K) - pick a number and define it as "fair".

I oppose leaving Iraq now - to me that is like pulling the football team off the field at the end of the third quarter in a game we are leading. The savings are grossly overstated, as they use figures for the total cost and not the marginal cost. Bring a soldier home from Iraq, you still have to pay him, house him, train him, etc. Bring a truck home home from Iraq, it still must be maintained, it will still have to replaced someday, etc. Certainly those soldiers and trucks will be brought back someday, but when they are, the savings will be a lot less than expected, especially since the additional dollar cost of the retreat must be considered. For example, say that if a family moves from Illinois to Texas, they can save about $5000 annually in cost of living (spend $35K instead of $40K), but the move itself costs $12,000. It is still a decision that must be made on several factors, and the "right decision" may be different depending on what factors different people emphasize, but anyone who thinks that if they make the move that they will suddenly have $40,000 or even $5,000 freed up for other uses is just not looking at everything. So if you are planning on spending the entire cost of the war on any alternative, check your numbers again.

As for the alternative energy solutions you support, I have no quarrel with your intended use of the money, just the amounts you may expect to have available. I think that allowing drilling as well would be of more benefit that just research alone. First, more drilling requires no tax money from Congress - it is all private capital. Second, more domestic production puts more tax dollars into Congress, so instead of an outflow of cash that must be made up by the top 2% of taxpayers, we have an inflow. Third, domestic production will result in domestic jobs for American taxpayers, bringing in even more taxes. Fourth, there is no guarantee, not even an educated guess, as to when and how well this research will pay off.

georgewebb Wrote:

JOwl Wrote:OR this whole debate could be pointless ideological hyperbole obscuring the main issue,
[edited a bit for clarity]

Uncovering the ideology at the root of a policy is ideological, but it is not pointless and it is not hyperbole.

If tax advocates are reluctant to lead by example because they don't like the way government would spend their extra contribution -- well, that's exactly the reason why taxation should be viewed reluctantly, not with glee. To say "I would pay more taxes if the money would be used the way I think it should" is to say "I don't generally trust government to spend the money the way I want", which is to say "I do not view tax increases as an inherently good thing." There is indeed a huge amount of common ground there.

My problem is that tax money is wasted openly, and nobody seems to give a damn. The word “efficiency” is not used in government.

There are programs that are fully funded, like DARE, when studies show them to be ineffective. Don't get me started on public works projects. That's 50% pure graft.

Politicians always say they are going to cut taxes. What they should be saying is that they are going to cut the cost (and size) of government.

Agree WMD. The problem is... most American's aren't really qualified to make judgements about certain things... especially those of a national nature. There are people in this country who would prefer we not have a military , or a DHS or a CIA or even an EPA at all, and that would last for a while... maybe a long while... but eventually, it would catch up to us.

The Constitution provides for the federal government to (among other things) solve disputes between the states, provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare. It's this last line that allows for lots of things that we generally don't agree on... and it causes Congress to trade votes... I'll vote for your sugar subsidy if you'll vote for my dam project.

I like art, but I don't like my tax money going for art I will never see. I would prefer to support local art, and let other states do the same. Same with things like dams.