Cohousing-L Mailing List: Sliding Fees

[Racheli Gai (racheli]

I am very much in favor of progressive taxing.
I don't have right now the time or energy to get into it
in great detail, but I just wanted to point out that saying 
that "sliding scale is socialistic at best" isn't much of argument.   Not
all of us think that socialism didn't have some very sound ideas.
Furthermore, some of us might even be socialists! (Perish the thought)... 


It amazed me, when we were discussing these issues some 
years ago, how some people considered the word "subsidy"
a dirty word.  I guess I only consider it a dirty word when
it applies to subsidizing the rich, which is really how things work in
this country.  (See, for example, Mark Zepezauer's (sp?) "Take the Rich
off of Wellfare", and Greg Palast's
"The Best Democracy Money Can Buy").  Or, don't read books,
just see who is "rebuilding" Iraq!

R. (Heading for the coffee pot). 


>Liz- 
>I think this would be a much more effective discussion if you didn't
>personally attack the writer's ideas/thoughts/feelings.  

>That said, I don't think Kay's stories prove your theory.  I think she
>accurately demonstrates that different ways work for different groups.
>IMHO, I don't think a sliding scale is fair.  I think a sliding scale is
>socialistic at best.  Everybody needs to contribute equally to get the
>same benefit.  Otherwise, all the people out there who are working VERY
>hard for their money will basically be subsidizing the people who make
>less.  It's fine if the people who make less feel comfortabhle with their
>income level, it doesn't have to elevate or lower their "status" in the
>community, but sliding scales do just that.  SOme people are forced into
>subsidizing others.  I would think that would stir up a bunch of
>resentment, whether or not you realize it.  Maybe you should think about
>that more carefully.   To Illustrate:
>Why should I pay twice as much as Mr. Jones next door, because I work
>very hard, scratched and scraped through school to get a better job,
>worked 2 jobs to pay off my student loans and make sure my kids go to
>good schools, then pay more than Mr. Jones because he's not willing to
>make the same sacrifices?  I certainly don't feel that he should, but I
>also don't feel he should benefit from my HARD work and sacrifice.  This
>country was founded on the ideal that we all work hard to get ahead,
>provide for our families, and help your neighbor if he needs it, but not
>to subsidise his lifestyle. I know those of you out there with the idea
>that it's ok to subsidize thy neighbor think this is some utopian way of
>diversifying your communities, and that's fine if you can live with that,
>but some of you are bound to feel resentment towards those getting to
>slide on the assesments, whether or not you admit it. Sorry but as a tax
>lawyer working with lower income clients pro bono I have seen thousands
>of families working just enough to pay the bills so they can get earned
>income credit (free money from my and your pocket via taxes) and then
>live off that for a few months.  The abuse is staggering!  They don't
>want to work.  They giggle at my desk about getting $5,000 plus in free
>money.  We are moving away from the idea that it's admirable to work hard
>and enjoy the fruits of your labor, and moving into the mindset of lets
>see how little we can get away with working and still have enough cash to
>buy those tommy hilfiger jeans.  IMHO subsidies are rewarding the people
>who don't choose to work as much.  I know, perhaps some would find that
>offensive, sorry, I don't mean that those who choose to teach in a school
>that doesn't pay much whould be less valued than those that choose to be
>doctors, not at all, they are both valuable and necessary, but I do think
>that we should all be treated equally.  We should not be valued by our
>income at all.  TO do that, we can't make people pay more or less
>according to their incomes.  If one member pays less, than someone else
>has to pay more, or else the COMMUNITY as a whole makes do with less.  So
>what that does is bring the whole community down to the income level of
>it's least affluent member.  I can't see how that benefits anybody,
>except the self righteous ones who are sure they are doing the best thing
>by being charitable to the poor.  Charity is great, but it should be
>volunatary. Sliding fees are forced charity, which suddenly is not
>charity, but socialism.  They also give the lower spectrum of income no
>incentive to strive, for a better job, a better career, this is going to
>open up a whole bunch of response I'm sure, just my opinion...  Temporary
>abatement in case of need might be more fair.
>Because if you assess at the lowest common denominator of income, then
>hamstring the gifters by not allowing gifts, or by attaching huge
>contingencies to the gifts, suddenly everybody is living in the standard
>of living that the least affluent member is living in.  So why work hard?
>Sounds more like a commune than a community, because it's just another
>way of income pooling.  
>The only way to be fair is to assess each membership stake equally. I
>really feel that assessing people more or less based on INCOME is bound
>to create resentment sooner or later.  How are the communities that are
>doing the sliding scale getting around this? Human nature will dictate
>that there is bound to be some resentment, spoken or not.
>Still trying to hash out details here and need the input.

-----------------------------------------------------------
racheli [at] sonoracohousing.com (Racheli Gai)
-----------------------------------------------------------


_______________________________________________
Cohousing-L mailing list
Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org  Unsubscribe  and other info:
http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L