obca87 (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} obca87) wrote,@ 2008-07-31 21:52:00 |
|
My conundrum
I'm having quite an ideological crisis right now. Maybe someone can help me.
Fact 1: I believe that the rich should pay more to pay for programs to help the poor
By and large, I consider myself a liberal. One of the things I believe in is progressive taxation, especially of the really really rich. I just read a time magazine that the median real wage over the past 10 years has dropped nearly a thousand dollars. There have been studies that show that the majority of the past decade's increase in wealth has gone to the VERY wealthy, like the top 2% or 0.2% or something like that.
I also believe in having government pay for some things. Education, for instance. Job training programs to help people get skills they need to compete in a global marketplace. Health care for those who can't afford it (because honestly, what does it say about a country if they can't or choose not to provide a basic level of health care to all of their citizens? I'll let you ponder that one). Anyway, in order to pay for these programs, you need taxes. And while I think almost everyone should pay taxes, I think there comes a point where it's okay to tax people more to raise more funds. Like I said, I'm a fan of progressive taxation. (although I haven't figured out specifics yet)
Fact 2: I don't like getting overcharged in the market, just because of the color of my skin.
Especially when I go to Praia (or heck anywhere that's not my city), I will routinely be quoted a much higher price than that which would be quoted to a Cape Verdean. Yes, I save a little bit of money here, and yes, I have access to more (if I really needed a ticket out of this country immediately I have friends and family members whom I could borrow from), so I can afford to pay 50 escudos more for vegetables than an average Cape Verdean in the street; or 300 escudos more for a dress than a Cape Verdean. Yet it still angers me.
The people selling these goods by and large have been poor all of their lives. I'm guessing that they don't have a computer at their house and if they had to leave immediately to go to Portugal for an operation, they might not be able to borrow the money for it.
THE CONUNDRUM: If I believe in Fact 1, why should I have such a problem with Fact 2.
If anything, fact 2 takes out the middleman when it comes to redistributing income (from me, the richer person to a vendor who is presumably poorer (or more correctly who might have less disposable income) and is therefore more efficient. It gives people the power to choose what they want to do with the extra money, and if you assume, like much of economics does, that people are rational, they'll spend the money on the thing that brings them the most happiness (utility), as opposed to a government program which might mandate what those funds are used for.
Ahh....I just can't reconcile those two facts. Cognitive dissonance anyone?
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive
I'm having quite an ideological crisis right now. Maybe someone can help me.
Fact 1: I believe that the rich should pay more to pay for programs to help the poor
By and large, I consider myself a liberal. One of the things I believe in is progressive taxation, especially of the really really rich. I just read a time magazine that the median real wage over the past 10 years has dropped nearly a thousand dollars. There have been studies that show that the majority of the past decade's increase in wealth has gone to the VERY wealthy, like the top 2% or 0.2% or something like that.
I also believe in having government pay for some things. Education, for instance. Job training programs to help people get skills they need to compete in a global marketplace. Health care for those who can't afford it (because honestly, what does it say about a country if they can't or choose not to provide a basic level of health care to all of their citizens? I'll let you ponder that one). Anyway, in order to pay for these programs, you need taxes. And while I think almost everyone should pay taxes, I think there comes a point where it's okay to tax people more to raise more funds. Like I said, I'm a fan of progressive taxation. (although I haven't figured out specifics yet)
Fact 2: I don't like getting overcharged in the market, just because of the color of my skin.
Especially when I go to Praia (or heck anywhere that's not my city), I will routinely be quoted a much higher price than that which would be quoted to a Cape Verdean. Yes, I save a little bit of money here, and yes, I have access to more (if I really needed a ticket out of this country immediately I have friends and family members whom I could borrow from), so I can afford to pay 50 escudos more for vegetables than an average Cape Verdean in the street; or 300 escudos more for a dress than a Cape Verdean. Yet it still angers me.
The people selling these goods by and large have been poor all of their lives. I'm guessing that they don't have a computer at their house and if they had to leave immediately to go to Portugal for an operation, they might not be able to borrow the money for it.
THE CONUNDRUM: If I believe in Fact 1, why should I have such a problem with Fact 2.
If anything, fact 2 takes out the middleman when it comes to redistributing income (from me, the richer person to a vendor who is presumably poorer (or more correctly who might have less disposable income) and is therefore more efficient. It gives people the power to choose what they want to do with the extra money, and if you assume, like much of economics does, that people are rational, they'll spend the money on the thing that brings them the most happiness (utility), as opposed to a government program which might mandate what those funds are used for.
Ahh....I just can't reconcile those two facts. Cognitive dissonance anyone?
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive
