Budget Cut Protestors - Help Me Understand

[Egbert]

When I was his age I couldn't expose how much I knew or how ignorant I was on the internet, 'cause I hadn't encountered it yet. *phew*

MikeH speaks the truth, again.

I had into wait until I was in my thirties to expose my ignorance on the internet.

[Dauphin]

Funny, that seems like what I said in my earlier post....

I didn't question the fact, I questioned the implication.

As a possible counter to your suggestion, the below link is from the same Guardian piece. If you sort by
"% change in formula grant, 2010-11 to 2011-12" you will see that Brentwood has the joint largest percentage cut in grant, greater than Liverpool's. Who is the MP for Brentwood? Mr Pickles.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/dec/14/local-council-cuts-data#

I consider this rather a minor point though. If you have two councils with equal needs, but historically one had greater funding than the other, is it unfair to increase spending on one, and decrease it on the other, in order to equilibriate spending? Discussions that assume percentage cuts as the appropriate measure inherently assume that funding was distributed "fairly" before the cuts.

Hence I would consider the Dorset funding issue more interesting. Dorset (shire county) has grant funding per head of £160, with the West Dorset council getting an additional £83 in funding - so £243 in total. Liverpool's grant funding per head is £796.

Of the others raised as being relative winners - Richmond-on-Thames has grant funding of £190 per head. Windsor and Maidenhead £156 per head. Wokingham £142 per head. Surrey Heath £179.

Of those raised as relative losers - Hackney receives per head grant funding of £1,075, Birmingham £690, Cornwall £400.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/xls/1796201.xls

Can the existance of a disparity be justified? Yes. Can the size be? I don't know. I just don't believe that the fact that cuts to Liverpool's budget are the highest in percentage terms is a solid argument for saying that they are being unfairly targetted. It's specious to my mind.

And yes, I'd agree that of course politics plays a role. Personally I think the cuts now as deep as they are, is the political aspect. The targets of those cuts is a follow-up issue derived from that - saying that councils are being selected based on voting base ignores that there is a justifiable budgetry based reason for those councils to be targetted.

[Kuciwalker]

HC is right that Thoreau sucks.

[Egbert]

Discussions that assume percentage cuts as the appropriate measure inherently assume that funding was distributed "fairly" before the cuts.

To get straight to the nub of "redistributions". Those who support redistribution generally have an upward redistribution for themselves in mind.

ie. If I get more money it is fair, if I get less money it is unfair.

Debate clothes the money grab in a cloak of respectability.

OTH Perhaps I am being a tad cynical.

[DaShi]

HC is right that Thoreau sucks.

It's pretty easy to find a Thoreau quote that supports almost any viewpoint. He was quite thorough in that regard.

[Hauldren Collider]

Sometimes, I really hate you DaShi.

[Hauldren Collider]

From: Economy, 'Walden' .

I could come up with a long, scathing rant about how retarded you are for thinking that anything in that paragraph even remotely resembles intelligent thought, but I already did that in English class last year and you are much less interesting to talk to than my classmates, so I'll summarize:

[Dauphin]

To get straight to the nub of "redistributions". Those who support redistribution generally have an upward redistribution for themselves in mind.

ie. If I get more money it is fair, if I get less money it is unfair.

Debate clothes the money grab in a cloak of respectability.

OTH Perhaps I am being a tad cynical.

I think it's more that people think it's a good idea until they actively consider that they lose out. Not that they want more money for themselves from such a system. Ask a (middle of political spectrum) person who would expect to lose out in such redistributions:

Do you believe in progressive taxation? Yes.
Do you want to pay more taxes whilst others pay less? No.

It's like asking a child:

Do you want to avoid going to the dentist for a filling? Yes.
Do you want to brush your teeth? No.

[David Floyd]

Well, Dauphin, to be fair it's more that the average taxpayer/voter doesn't understand what progressive taxation is. They would likely say they support it because if it's "progressive" it has to be good, right?

It's much more likely that, if explained properly, the average taxpayer/voter would be in favor of a flat tax - that is, everyone pays the same percentage, meaning that the poor pay less and the rich pay more. This is the only fundamentally fair tax system available, anyway, and assuming all loopholes are closed there have been studies showing that a flat tax system would actually INCREASE tax revenues.

[C0ckney]

dauphin, bringing some reality to the 'cuts' hysteria.

[Dauphin]

Well, Dauphin, to be fair it's more that the average taxpayer/voter doesn't understand what progressive taxation is. They would likely say they support it because if it's "progressive" it has to be good, right?

It's much more likely that, if explained properly, the average taxpayer/voter would be in favor of a flat tax - that is, everyone pays the same percentage, meaning that the poor pay less and the rich pay more. This is the only fundamentally fair tax system available, anyway, and assuming all loopholes are closed there have been studies showing that a flat tax system would actually INCREASE tax revenues.

Maybe where you live and in your circles, but I think you are a minority viewpoint. I'm open to contrary evidence.

The terminology issue is a red herring. You could say "should people who earn more pay more as a share of their income" and I stand by my point.

[David Floyd]

The problem with posting polls showing one result or another is that they will automatically be accused of bias. A simple Google search will turn up tons of polls regarding a flat tax, and US tax policy in general. Read and believe what you want. I'd be willing to make you a bet, though - ask 20 randomly selected people if they would be in favor of a tax system in which everyone pays the same percentage, and I would be shocked if less than 12 said they would be in favor of such a system. If you want to actually take me up on that, come up with some stakes we can actually play for - I'm OK with the outcome being based on the honor system.

[Dauphin]

What I said about the progressive tax applies similarly to the flat tax. As median income is below mean income I would suggest that many/most would change their mind once they were told they pay more in tax under a flat tax.

Braindead would perhaps suggest it's why most western countries have a progressive tax - it is a vote winner.

[Dauphin]

Out of curiosity, are you in favour of a personal allowance? i.e an amount below which you pay no tax. Say $5,000? Or do you believe even the first dollar should be taxed?

[Egbert]

What I said about the progressive tax applies similarly to the flat tax. As median income is below mean income I would suggest that many/most would change their mind once they were told they pay more in tax under a flat tax.

Braindead would perhaps suggest it's why most western countries have a progressive tax - it is a vote winner.

I would suggest such a thing. I would be astonished if a flat tax could get passed into law as too many voters would be fearful of paying more. Flat tax seems a big vote loser.

OTH I don't think people are completely selfish. If you want them to pay more you must show that the money will go to a good cause.

Of course, as Dauphin mentioned, there is the consideration that people might think something a good idea until they think of how much they will lose out.