Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Funny, I don't think Sidd used the term veil, rawls, or original position.
|
There's a joke in there about ignorance (at least implied), but Sidd still owes me money, and in the interest of collecting it some day, I'll let that one float by. Agreed, though, that my point ended up diverging somewhat from Sidd's, although I'll let him pick up on it.
Quote:
|
Furthermore, using this mechanism, or theory, still has to be done in a circumspect manner. I'll use a local example. DC has seen property values rise immensely in recent years. In particular, in the wealthy part of the city. As a result, property tax revenues have skyrocketed (not hard .96*3X > .96*X). Naturally, those whose property values have gone up the most have had their taxes go up the most. Well, DC council is considering a bill to reduce the property tax rate. Sounds good, right? Everybody has lower taxes! Not so fast--the majority of the benefits (i.e., gross reduction of taxes) accrues to the richie riches. Big surprise--if you pay more taxes, you get a bigger cut when the cut comes. Objection!
|
I think you're extending the Veil of Ignorance concept beyond its intended purpose (or at least my intended purpose).
Quote:
|
So, we already have progressive taxation. Are you saying Rawls would justify any level of progressive taxation? I doubt it. Even Rawls could see that there are dynamic incentive effects that even people in the worst original position would want everyone to have, to ensure a better level for everyone.
|
No, I'm not saying that. I am saying, though, that Club maintained that one cannot forward a moral argument for progressive taxation, at least not one that's disingenuous.
I disagreed. Rawls provides a mechanism that can establish the morality of progressive taxation.
I agree that this framework is less illuminative when discussing the relative merits of individual adjustments in an existing progressive taxation system, but that's not what I was getting at.
Gattigap
