I came across an interesting article recently that explores issues of public goods and our attitudes toward them. You can read the article here:
There’s a lot more in this article than I want to discuss, but I do want to dig deeper into this issue of what we value. What do we put stock in? What means something to us, and how do we show it? Many say that the best way to determine what we value may be where we put our time and money. But I’m not so sure this is true anymore. Think about what you value most. Is that where most of your time and money is spent? The author has an opinion on this:
“What we value ... is cheapness. Rock-bottom prices. Low taxes. So we get tomatoes that taste like crunchy sponges, but at least we don’t pay a lot for them. Instead of percale bedsheets made in the
First of all, I don’t think we actually value cheapness. I think we truly value good food, good products, and healthy and well-kept communities. Instead, I think we have lost the understanding of the connection between those things which we value and the idea that they are worth paying for. In other words, when we buy the crappy tomatoes that have traveled thousands of miles so that food companies, and consumers, can get them cheaper, we have not lost value in good-tasting food; we have simply forgotten that good food is worth paying for.
And this brings up an important point: we’ve lost all sense of what is valuable. Even more, once we figure it out, we can’t remember the rational behavior involved in showing that the thing has value to us. The result: we can’t decide whether we value our tax dollars or vibrant, healthy communities more. And when we do decide, we behave irrationally. If we value lower taxes, we move out to the suburbs where we rack up infrastructure bills and abandon troubled areas, both resulting in higher taxes. And if we value healthy communities, most of us… well, we move out to the suburbs looking for that community, where the resulting infrastructure and city abandonment problems serve to create less vibrant and healthy communities (plus, more taxes). It’s amazing how backward we have become.
With all of the Tea (Taxed Enough Already) Party stuff going on, a pertinent question to all of this is: What is worth being taxed for? Where should tax dollars go and where should they not go? And to test my own thought; If people should receive tax cuts in poor economic times in order to spur economic growth, then shouldn’t they also be taxed more during good economic times in order to shore up some security for the bad times to come? I’m interested in hearing what people have to say.
4 comments:
Ryan, it's a complex subject, so I'll focus on one point... the tomatoes that taste like crunchy sponges.
I recommend two books that illustrate "how we got here," to the point that Americans (on the whole) value year-round availability and price more than taste and nutrition (the true reasons to eat at all!). I'd recommend The Organic Manifesto, by Maria Rodale; and Animal, Vegetable, Miracle, by Barbara Kingsolver.
I'm no purist by any means, but they both made me think more about how and why I eat and feed my loved ones (including the dog)!
Ryan,
Very interesting blog again, I always enjoy reading what you have to say.
I'd like to take a minute and respond to your question, "Where should tax dollars go and where should they not go?"
As a Libertarian, I believe taxes should be minimal, but I do believe in taxes nonetheless.
I believe the primary roles of any government (Federal, State, Local, etc.) should be to protect a citizen's rights. Therefore tax dollars should go towards national defense, the courts system and police. Roads, parks, infrastructure, etc. can be paid through tax dollars but on a per use basis.
Tax dollars should not go towards retirement, health care, education, fire departments, and many more similar socialized systems. These would all be better run privately.
Incentives such as "cash for clunkers" and "first-time home buyers" are also unnecessary and unfair.
Non-profits and welfare systems should be left to private donations. If people do not feel they are important enough to donate to, then the government has no right to force them.
These are just my opinions.
Thanks for the book suggestions, Megan! I read and loved Kingsolver's book, but I haven't gotten ahold of Maria's book yet. I would imagine the Bethlehem library would carry it since the author is so local, so I'll check it out. I'm not a purist either, but I am fascinated by food and love books like Kingsolver's and those by Pollan.
By the way, I personally think we "got here" because it was profitable, which leads nicely into my next response...
Thanks, Mitch, for your response and ideas. I think you hit on some good points as well as missed the point on a few others.
First, I agree with you that the primary role of government should be to protect rights. Even more importantly (for my own focus anyway), I agree that roads and infrastructure (though not parks) should be paid on a per use basis. This is not likely to happen, though. The suburbs would not exist to the extent that they do today if this were the case. Once you make people actually pay the full costs of using the roads, sewers, and power grid extensions that must be built to support new developments, the per user costs would be prohibitive except to the very wealthy. Politicians and developers know this and would never let it happen. So, does making suburban housing unaffordable to most people take away their rights to live where they choose?
I don’t agree with lumping parks into that group because parks are a different animal altogether. Parks are essentially plots of public land surrounded by private land. The reason they exist is for the benefit of everyone, even those who cannot afford it. With roads and infrastructure, people must have a certain amount of money to afford the objects that those infrastructural systems support (cars, houses, etc). Parks are different. Parks support people, and people should not be constrained by their income to use such a benefit.
I understand the libertarian thought process, but I don’t understand how libertarians think society will function under their political ideas. Let’s take education as an example. I agree that property taxes are not the best way to fund education, but I am scared out of my mind of what would happen if public schools disappeared. It is simple supply and demand: the demand for quality education is universal, meaning that everyone wants their kids to have it. The supply, whether under government or private control, is limited: with government being able to supply everyone an education, but quality education can only be supplied to some; and the private market simply not seeing the profitability in providing education to families who cannot pay for it. I know some libertarians think that the people who can’t pay for their own education don’t deserve to receive it, but I don’t see how they can really think that this is a desirable policy for our country to take. It’s as if they think that having illiterate neighbors and fellow citizens doesn’t impact them at all.
My biggest problem with a private market controlling things like education and healthcare is that I think it is morally wrong and actually completely inefficient to allow profits to be made on the sickness and illiteracy of the unfortunate. We have hospital and insurance CEOs making millions with internal policies that cut care for those that need it most. If education is completely privatized, we’ll have principals and school board members making millions to make the “tough” decisions of shutting down schools in the hood and eliminating civics classes because they promote the crazy idea of public service.
I can’t help but think that strict libertarianism is just as extreme as full-blown socialism: They both have great ideas that are applicable in real life, but when trouble comes, they are easily and rightfully abandoned. Someone close to me with strong libertarian views recently made the decision to sign up for government healthcare because she was no longer offered healthcare through her employer and private plans wouldn’t cover her at a reasonable price because of a pre-existing condition. She said, “I don’t believe in it, but I have to do it.” I think that’s the reality of the situation many people are in, and that is why government must offer these services. Governments must protect people’s rights, but they must also protect those that cannot protect themselves. As controversial as that may be right now, it is true of every non-corrupt government on earth.
Post a Comment