From balancer to a burden
29/11/18 00:40![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mahnmut posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsI remember back in my childhood while I used to live in the Netherlands, I saw a guy who claimed to heal people using his magical cat Max. He performed his socially responsible job to standing applause from his devout audience, without any of them stopping for a moment to question his methods or the empirical efficiency of his magic.
If you ask a member of a right-wing think-tank if they believed in this guy and his cat's abilities, you'd get a No, right? Along with a certain amount of scorn and mockery on the mythologically-mythical, irrational woo of such practices. But if you talk with them about taxes for a while, you'd be surprised to find out that Max the cat might have a rival at the field of surreal truths, in that these guys seem to adhere to a certain type of cult, which we could summarize as "Taxes Are a Burden". A cult that rejects the traditional function of taxes as a means for maintaining balance in society.
At first sight, there's little if nothing in common between Max the cat and the "Taxes Are a Burden" (especially for the rich) adage. Surely, Max is a mystical fiction, while the "taxes are a burden" metaphor has obtained the status of a law of nature, a generalized principle of rationality, a universally moral imperative. Right? I mean, if anyone dares to express an opinion different from this, that's usually interpreted as a sign of ignorance or a result of the loser's moral degradation. Let's set aside the question how such notions might correspond to the basic elements of democratic political culture. Except, here we're talking of turning fanaticism into norm.
"The tax burden", and "tax relief", you see, actually aren't objective categories. They're conceptual metaphors, linguistic constructs whose function is to interpret the rules of reality through the "right" ideological framework. George Lakoff, a US cognitive linguist noticed that the "tax burden / tax relief" metaphor is based on two traditional tales.
One is about salvation. This story includes three characters: the Innocent Victim, the Bad Guy and the Good Guy, The story goes from the evil act that causes the innocent victim pain and suffering, through the hero's struggle with the bad guy, and finally to the good guy's victory over the bad guy. The end result is the innocent victim's salvation, the good guy's reward, and the bad guy's penance.
The second tale is about healing. There are two characters, the Suffering Guy and the Healer, and they interact at the background of the Sufferer's, well, suffering, to the hands of the Cause of Suffering - and then relief, and healing. At first, some Cause of Suffering causes the Sufferer to suffer, then the Healer relieves the Sufferer's suffering and heals him. The end result: the Sufferer is relieved and healed, the Healer gets his praise, and the Cause of Suffering is neutralized.
When we combine the two tales, we get the following connections. The Innocent Victim from the former one corresponds to the Sufferer from the latter. The Good Guy is same as the Healer. The Good Guy's battle with the Bad Guy is the same as the Healer's work against the Cause of Suffering.
Now let's get back to the taxes, and look for the corresponding schemes and scenarios. Taxes are Suffering; wanting more taxes is the Cause of Suffering (or at least wanting a fairer tax distribution). Opponents to taxation are the Healer, tax cuts are the healing, praising the tax cuts is the reward, neutralizing the supporters of higher (or fairer) taxes is the penance. Therefore those who pay taxes are the Innocent Victim, those who want taxes are the Bad Guy, and opponents to taxes are the Good Guy (hero).
So every time we hear the "Tax Burden" and "Tax Relief" metaphor, we could make the connection: it's an interpretation of reality through the categories postulated by the two traditional, mythological even, tales. If we substitute any right-wing think-tank with the Healer, we'd recognize the sources of legitimacy and veracity for their economic expertise. If we substitute the healer who used Max the cat with the Good Guy (the opponent to taxation), we'd realize why both are so convincing to their respective audiences. Turns out, the "ultimate paragon of reason" (right-wing think-tanks), and "charlatanic woo" (Max the cat) aren't that different in the metaphorical constructs and notions that they represent.
The "Tax Burden" tale only makes sense within the context of a certain ideological perspective. It's based on a certain modification of the paradigm of the rational societal player. The economy and society consists of individuals who are occupied with maximizing their own rational interests (i.e. individual gain) with minimum external interference. What's considered fair and good is everything that allows to maximize the individual's own interest. The results are only considered fair if pursuing individual goals is unhindered by external (state) regulations (beyond the mere protection of private property). If in result of the rational pursuit of individual interest some social disparities occur, those are not considered unfair per se.
As per this model, any intervention on the field of the free and infallible market aiming to mitigate social disparity, is perceived as an attempt to limit individual personal interest, and is therefore unfair and unwanted. What you get from the market is what you've personally deserved, it only depends on you, the individual, therefore it's yours by right. If you get something you haven't worked for (e.g. from the welfare state), you'd become dependent, you'd lose self-discipline, and you'd start relying on others, which makes you irrational and immoral. Such a notion of rationality (as orientated toward individual gain) is being presented as a universal characteristic of humankind, which is explained and excused with its egoistical nature.
In the meantime, here in the real world, anthropological knowledge has shown for quite a while that in stateless societies, the notions of fairness and justice isa result of the principle of general reciprocy, which implies the distribution of resources within the community at a relatively even basis. This principle should be guaranteed and ensured if there are people who are deprived of the basic conditions and resources for sustaining their life and function in the community. In other words, this sort of societal interaction is based on altruism and empathy. In this sense, if we are to apply the above-described ideological dogma here, that means the Indigenous peoples of Africa, Polinesia and South America are not to be considered human beings - which is absurd, of course. And here we're not talking about mere aesthetical tastes, but of ideological principles that make this sort of mindset eerily close to the extreme far-right, including neo-Nazi ideologies. But that's another topic.
If we assume for a moment that people are indeed altruistic, and empathy is at the core of rational behavior, then the whole model described here stops making sense and use. In that case, taxes would no longer be a burden, but rather something akin to regular contributions to maintaining the community; their payment, a sign of responsibility and virtue. And it's not like cases in point of this don't abound everything around us. Except, in a dogmatic ideological mindset, empirical reality and evidence doesn't matter - all that matters is adhering to the model. A sensible discussion of taxation could only happen if we abandon dogmatic models like these. I'm not even talking of the right-wing abandoning their convictions - suffice for them to just assume for a moment that a point of view different from theirs could possibly exist, and even occasionally be correct.
But if right-wing ideologues, be they neo-liberal technocrats or selfish libertarians, keep insisting that only their view of the human psyche and behavior, and only their interpretation of rationality is valid, then the only interlocutor remaining for them would quite likely be Max the cat. Or the extreme, extreme right. And believe me, that's not a good company you'd want to keep in the long run.
If you ask a member of a right-wing think-tank if they believed in this guy and his cat's abilities, you'd get a No, right? Along with a certain amount of scorn and mockery on the mythologically-mythical, irrational woo of such practices. But if you talk with them about taxes for a while, you'd be surprised to find out that Max the cat might have a rival at the field of surreal truths, in that these guys seem to adhere to a certain type of cult, which we could summarize as "Taxes Are a Burden". A cult that rejects the traditional function of taxes as a means for maintaining balance in society.
At first sight, there's little if nothing in common between Max the cat and the "Taxes Are a Burden" (especially for the rich) adage. Surely, Max is a mystical fiction, while the "taxes are a burden" metaphor has obtained the status of a law of nature, a generalized principle of rationality, a universally moral imperative. Right? I mean, if anyone dares to express an opinion different from this, that's usually interpreted as a sign of ignorance or a result of the loser's moral degradation. Let's set aside the question how such notions might correspond to the basic elements of democratic political culture. Except, here we're talking of turning fanaticism into norm.
"The tax burden", and "tax relief", you see, actually aren't objective categories. They're conceptual metaphors, linguistic constructs whose function is to interpret the rules of reality through the "right" ideological framework. George Lakoff, a US cognitive linguist noticed that the "tax burden / tax relief" metaphor is based on two traditional tales.
One is about salvation. This story includes three characters: the Innocent Victim, the Bad Guy and the Good Guy, The story goes from the evil act that causes the innocent victim pain and suffering, through the hero's struggle with the bad guy, and finally to the good guy's victory over the bad guy. The end result is the innocent victim's salvation, the good guy's reward, and the bad guy's penance.
The second tale is about healing. There are two characters, the Suffering Guy and the Healer, and they interact at the background of the Sufferer's, well, suffering, to the hands of the Cause of Suffering - and then relief, and healing. At first, some Cause of Suffering causes the Sufferer to suffer, then the Healer relieves the Sufferer's suffering and heals him. The end result: the Sufferer is relieved and healed, the Healer gets his praise, and the Cause of Suffering is neutralized.
When we combine the two tales, we get the following connections. The Innocent Victim from the former one corresponds to the Sufferer from the latter. The Good Guy is same as the Healer. The Good Guy's battle with the Bad Guy is the same as the Healer's work against the Cause of Suffering.
Now let's get back to the taxes, and look for the corresponding schemes and scenarios. Taxes are Suffering; wanting more taxes is the Cause of Suffering (or at least wanting a fairer tax distribution). Opponents to taxation are the Healer, tax cuts are the healing, praising the tax cuts is the reward, neutralizing the supporters of higher (or fairer) taxes is the penance. Therefore those who pay taxes are the Innocent Victim, those who want taxes are the Bad Guy, and opponents to taxes are the Good Guy (hero).
So every time we hear the "Tax Burden" and "Tax Relief" metaphor, we could make the connection: it's an interpretation of reality through the categories postulated by the two traditional, mythological even, tales. If we substitute any right-wing think-tank with the Healer, we'd recognize the sources of legitimacy and veracity for their economic expertise. If we substitute the healer who used Max the cat with the Good Guy (the opponent to taxation), we'd realize why both are so convincing to their respective audiences. Turns out, the "ultimate paragon of reason" (right-wing think-tanks), and "charlatanic woo" (Max the cat) aren't that different in the metaphorical constructs and notions that they represent.
The "Tax Burden" tale only makes sense within the context of a certain ideological perspective. It's based on a certain modification of the paradigm of the rational societal player. The economy and society consists of individuals who are occupied with maximizing their own rational interests (i.e. individual gain) with minimum external interference. What's considered fair and good is everything that allows to maximize the individual's own interest. The results are only considered fair if pursuing individual goals is unhindered by external (state) regulations (beyond the mere protection of private property). If in result of the rational pursuit of individual interest some social disparities occur, those are not considered unfair per se.
As per this model, any intervention on the field of the free and infallible market aiming to mitigate social disparity, is perceived as an attempt to limit individual personal interest, and is therefore unfair and unwanted. What you get from the market is what you've personally deserved, it only depends on you, the individual, therefore it's yours by right. If you get something you haven't worked for (e.g. from the welfare state), you'd become dependent, you'd lose self-discipline, and you'd start relying on others, which makes you irrational and immoral. Such a notion of rationality (as orientated toward individual gain) is being presented as a universal characteristic of humankind, which is explained and excused with its egoistical nature.
In the meantime, here in the real world, anthropological knowledge has shown for quite a while that in stateless societies, the notions of fairness and justice isa result of the principle of general reciprocy, which implies the distribution of resources within the community at a relatively even basis. This principle should be guaranteed and ensured if there are people who are deprived of the basic conditions and resources for sustaining their life and function in the community. In other words, this sort of societal interaction is based on altruism and empathy. In this sense, if we are to apply the above-described ideological dogma here, that means the Indigenous peoples of Africa, Polinesia and South America are not to be considered human beings - which is absurd, of course. And here we're not talking about mere aesthetical tastes, but of ideological principles that make this sort of mindset eerily close to the extreme far-right, including neo-Nazi ideologies. But that's another topic.
If we assume for a moment that people are indeed altruistic, and empathy is at the core of rational behavior, then the whole model described here stops making sense and use. In that case, taxes would no longer be a burden, but rather something akin to regular contributions to maintaining the community; their payment, a sign of responsibility and virtue. And it's not like cases in point of this don't abound everything around us. Except, in a dogmatic ideological mindset, empirical reality and evidence doesn't matter - all that matters is adhering to the model. A sensible discussion of taxation could only happen if we abandon dogmatic models like these. I'm not even talking of the right-wing abandoning their convictions - suffice for them to just assume for a moment that a point of view different from theirs could possibly exist, and even occasionally be correct.
But if right-wing ideologues, be they neo-liberal technocrats or selfish libertarians, keep insisting that only their view of the human psyche and behavior, and only their interpretation of rationality is valid, then the only interlocutor remaining for them would quite likely be Max the cat. Or the extreme, extreme right. And believe me, that's not a good company you'd want to keep in the long run.
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/18 00:22 (UTC)As evidence they cited the way banks currently make loans. When a bank approves a loan of, say, half a million dollars for you to buy a house, they don't actually have half a million in cash reserves to hand out to the seller of the home. They create a negative balance of half a million digitally from thin air, assign it to you, then electronically wire half a million digitally to the seller. There is effectively no limit to the number of times they can do this, except government regulation. "Money" created from debt is indistinguishable from cash outside the bank.
So, why not let governments do the same thing?
Utterly bizarre. Among the various objections I had to it was: eliminating taxes means eliminating the ability to charge or penalize people different amounts based on their different usage of services.
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/18 11:55 (UTC)They're partly right. Printing money to fund the government over the long term leads to hyperinflation, not inflation. It also makes collecting taxes useless since the payment of taxes usually follows the taxed event by several months, during which time the tax being paid has lost most of its value, so they're correct about this as well. However, before taking this route, I'd suggest we ask the Venezuelans how this is working out for them.
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/18 00:36 (UTC)But taxes are also fuel to power government apparatus, and tax money is spent for purposes, in specific ways, and those specifics are always tricky. That taxes naturally create a balancing effect is a naïve assumption.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury."
(Alexander Fraser Tytler, 1747-1813, possibly.)
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/18 10:34 (UTC)Pretty much.
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/18 10:59 (UTC)