tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post8732550282359535069..comments2024-03-27T07:18:39.229-05:00Comments on In Medias Res: Taxation and Democracy 101 (on Lucky Duckies and Other Never-Ending Debates)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-16133707046758055202008-06-17T10:26:00.000-05:002008-06-17T10:26:00.000-05:00"Actually, Megan and Henry's original argument--wh..."Actually, Megan and Henry's original argument--which is really more a methodological one than anything, pertaining to how one discerns and attributes normative weight to various collective actions and presumably ..."<BR/><BR/>Actually, no. It was Megan not understanding the term 'collective action problem', even after her right-wing commenters schooled her on it. <BR/><BR/>-BarryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-84034392792833492642008-02-29T10:28:00.000-06:002008-02-29T10:28:00.000-06:00sadly, it's disappeared into the Great TNR Online ...sadly, it's disappeared into the Great TNR Online Archive Loss of 2007. We keep hearing that everything missing will get back online eventually, but it's taking a while. I must have my originals of all of them in an old e-mail account and on an old hard drive, but I keep not looking for them out pending the TNR fix.Jacob T. Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02575549001627195334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-20758809887920458172008-02-26T13:37:00.000-06:002008-02-26T13:37:00.000-06:00Rob,I get concerned, though I still take the money...Rob,<BR/><BR/><I>I get concerned, though I still take the money, over the Federal Supplemental Child Tax Credit, which in my case rebates back to me more than I have withheld in income taxes....Largely, it pays off incidental big-ticket items, like dental sealants for the kids. Or an oral retainer. Replacement eyeglasses for me. In other words, health care. That's an interesting anecdotal wrinkle on a national debate, isn't it? </I><BR/><BR/>Never thought about it that way, but you're right: the sort of people who rake it in through the Child Tax Credit are the sort of people who generally have large and uncovered health and dental expenses. That's what we have to look forward to! Right now, we're using our tax refund to try to finally pay off last year's summer vacation and the attendant damage to the car.<BR/><BR/>Jacob,<BR/><BR/><I>I want to to keep one eye on the person who in my view is being exploited, whereas Russell wants that person just to celebrate his or her new Rousseauian freedom, and wants to be able to describe the person as just morally mistaken if he or she thinks anything bad has happened at all. (Sorry, but I think this 'democracy 101' stuff is a little unnecessarily dismissive, so I'll suggest that Russell hasn't picked on 'negative liberty 101.')</I><BR/><BR/>Fair enough, Jacob; as I said (I think?) in my original post, you make a strong point about the importance of keeping one's eyes on the many various forms of exploitation present in our society, and how even supposedly innocuous collective goods like public schools can potentially fall into that trap. So you keep your Isaiah Berlin and Judith Shklar handy, while I'm batting around my Benjamin Barber and Charles Taylor.<BR/><BR/>I still maintain that there's some important overlap between the question of taxes for schools and the matter of other forms of exploitation we explored back them, but perhaps I was a little aggressive in my drawing of the parallels. Do you still have a copy of your <I>TNR</I> piece? You should repost it; I'd love to be able to find it and cite it online.Russell Arben Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03366800726360134194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-74569515760859781072008-02-26T11:43:00.000-06:002008-02-26T11:43:00.000-06:00I also wrote there:"To sometimes be yoked together...I also wrote there:<BR/><BR/>"To sometimes be yoked together under a shared institution in order to preserve its viability is the universal price of political life. To try to redraw the class boundaries, to keep people linked to one sense of shared belonging rather than another, or to argue that this or that shared institution really isn't necessary or desirable--this is the basic stuff of politics. It should always be done with a bit of bad conscience, and without denying the element of exploitation. But no one should pretend to be surprised that it's being done at all." <BR/><BR/>Now, obviously I still differ from Russell; I want to to keep one eye on the person who in my view is being exploited, whereas Russell wants that person just to celebrate his or her new Rousseauian freedom, and wants to be able to describe the person as just morally mistaken if he or she thinks anything bad has happened at all. (Sorry, but I think this 'democracy 101' stuff is a little unnecessarily dismissive, so I'll suggest that Russell hasn't picked on 'negative liberty 101.') But I wasn't saying that the cases didn't differ. Nor did I say that all of the interests implicated were "essential" ones. I said some cases would be justified and others not-- albeit with some justificatory burden.<BR/><BR/>Again, I think the heart of our disagreement isn't the tax case but is conscription. And I see no problem in saying:<BR/>1) some wars need to be fought;<BR/>2) maybe even, in certain kinds of emergencies, conscription is ultimately needed; but also<BR/>3) the conscript is exploited by the society he's risking life and limb for that won't even pay him a competitive wage for the task, and that this is a moral cost; the conscript has not been gifted by his society with some new morally elevated privilege of contributing to a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. He should continue to get to count at least as a part; his loss of liberty and potential loss of life is a cost, not a benefit.Jacob T. Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02575549001627195334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-30707259883672277312008-02-25T22:10:00.000-06:002008-02-25T22:10:00.000-06:00I get concerned, though I still take the money, ov...I get concerned, though I still take the money, over the Federal Supplemental Child Tax Credit, which in my case rebates back to me more than I have withheld in income taxes. (I'm in the high five figures for gross income.)<BR/><BR/>That is to say, nothing is withheld, and the Feds deposit a couple grand in my account each tax season. Ostensibly this is to offset the FICA withholdings. <BR/><BR/>Of course, I take the money. Largely, it pays off incidental big-ticket items, like dental sealants for the kids. Or an oral retainer. Replacement eyeglasses for me. <BR/><BR/>In other words, health care. That's an interesting anecdotal wrinkle on a national debate, isn't it? <BR/><BR/>Regarding schools, I know I'm firmly in the taxed-public-common-schools camp. The benefit I draw now, and drew in spades as a growing child and teen, I pay later as an empty nester in a very valuable home on valuable property, "Lord willin' and the creek don't rise."<BR/><BR/>Pardon faults and all, but *that seems fair to me*. Pay extra voluntarily? I don't think so, because I can target my extra far more effectively through PTO's and such, for schools, or food banks and humanitarian aid funds, for other causes. There are verifiably more hands out for that extra than I can fill, even with a negative income tax!<BR/><BR/>Raise my taxes through the legislative process or according to law-based formula, byzantine or not. (The Washington State laws regarding computing a county's property tax are positively byzantine.)Rob Perkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15618647194288598056noreply@blogger.com