Gene Wolfe Fans Talk Politics (Again)

Adam Thornton · 19 May 2009, 23:09 · from 2009-May.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: adam at io.com (Adam Thornton)
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 18:09:17 -0500
Subject: (urth) Gene Wolfe Fans Talk Politics (Again)
In-Reply-To: <BD4FACD5AAA943568DAC238C1E3F3911@eMachinePC>
References: <mailman.68838.1242757770.12296.urth-urth.net at lists.urth.net><4A1304A1.1000901 at verizon.net><13409.67.142.130.18.1242761222.squirrel at brunians.org><2BCC6FAA-905B-4A04-BFAE-817E0EDE9BD8 at io.com><D67BBCB673F4491BB8DC3A37289BD563@eMachinePC><002BF131-691F-4247-B56E-19C9D86BDA6D at io.com><50586EEE2CA14862AA7A038867E0B211@eMachinePC><9ABFD473-EF4F-44FA-8C53-9A140080E64F at io.com><2D85DC7E1002442C9FFC385EBA1BB3A0@eMachinePC>
	<F692D3D3-5B04-432A-B757-4DDDECFD95F8 at io.com>
	<BD4FACD5AAA943568DAC238C1E3F3911@eMachinePC>
Message-ID: <6A6E9DB2-F98D-4FB2-B783-95A98F2FC944 at io.com>

On May 19, 2009, at 5:06 PM, James Wynn wrote:
> Marginal value decreases for whom? Not to the people who work to  
> earn it.

That's exactly what I was saying: for the people who work to earn it.   
At least, for *me*.

I was arguing from my own experience: the marginal value of the  
$30,000 between an income of $30K and $60K was much, much less than of  
the $15,000 between $15K and $30K.

> You're argument divorces the amount of money made from the people  
> who created it.

Well, in my case, yeah, it's the same guy.  Modulo Heraclitus and  
stuff.  So that factor is controlled for.

> 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.

Yes and no.  I mean, sure, there is a reason I eventually started  
getting paid more money: I was doing jobs that required skills that  
were rarer, or at least more valued by the people willing to employ  
me, and I had acquired those skills through experience and training.   
But on the other hand, I'm still in some important sense the me I was  
twenty years ago.

But I'm not arguing that I shouldn't be making more money; I'm arguing  
that taxation taking 25% of the $60,000 of the top-earning me in my  
example hurts a lot less than taking 15% of the $15,000 I was making  
as low-earning me.  (Now, to be fair, I am nowhere near sure these  
represent even approximate actual tax rates when those were about my  
income levels, and I'm not about to go digging through my tax records  
to find out.)

> It ignores the risks the second guy took in capital, time, and  
> effort in order to create that wealth.

How so?  Those risks are compensated in the increased pay, aren't  
they?  I mean, by your argument, I should be doing four times the work  
to generate four times the income, right?  I'm certainly not.  My job  
now is *much* more interesting and much less unpleasant than when I  
was making crap wages.  Jobs that involve serious physical labor--and  
are thus, in many senses, the hardest--tend to also be at the bottom  
of the pay scale.  And sure, it took a lot of time and learning to get  
here, but the time spent *still* beat digging ditches.

> It also ignores the fact that the first guy gets far more BENEFIT  
> from non-essential government services that the second guy.

Some more, sure: I rode a lot more public transport when I was poorer  
than I do now.  Far more, not so sure.  I probably walk or ride a bike  
around in public parks *more* now since--again, in my experience-- 
higher-paying jobs tend to come with more flexible schedules.  There  
are a lot of nonessential services I don't use, and never did, but I  
don't begrudge the fact that I'm funding them: some people DO get  
value out of their services and there's value to me in those people  
being happier.

> Some would say the differences therefore balance out so that both  
> should pay the same rate.

And I don't.

Should Moe pay for half the well?  I don't know.  What's the benefit  
to him of building the well at all?  What are the downsides to him if  
the well is not built?  Should the well's costs be recouped through a  
per-liter charge on its usage, with the costs repaid to the financiers  
of the project, or is it actually going to be presented as a common  
good?  If the latter, how much does Moe value his participation in the  
society that he and his neighbors constitute?  If the answer is "not  
that much," does he get to be sad if he then has to provide his own  
fire protection if he withdraws from their society?

Adam

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net