Hacker News Reader

Comment by shuntress | Hacker News Reader

"I don't have any children, why do I have to pay property tax to fund my towns schools? I'm being ripped off!"

It is possible to have compassion without "a social network of interpersonal support". An example of this is recognizing the importance of costs (like schools) from which I receive no direct benefit (if I do not have children in those schools).

Yes its not as helpful as active volunteering. But the general mindset of "This is everyone's problem" is much more globally beneficial than always thinking "It's not my problem".

View on HN

A lot of this stems from the Calvinist strain of religious thought that holds earthly wealth or poverty to be a sign of God's favor (or not). If I find myself in discourse with someone who holds to draconian economic views, I often slip in a few casual questions/references to see what sort of religious tradition they gravitate towards (which has nothing to do with belief, even atheists have attitudinal religious positions).

In my experience, dealing with someone who thinks the divine will is manifested in earthly affairs is better avoided. Or to quote William Burroughs' more colorful version of the same advice: if you are doing business with a religious son-of-a-bitch, get it in writing,* his word ain't worth shit - not with the good Lord telling how to fuck you on the deal.*

Please note that my criticism is directed as a particular subset of religious thought rather than religion in general. Every belief system has the potential to manifest in good and bad ways.

That kind of religious thought is not Calvinist in the least. Here's an actual quote from one of Calvin's sermons on the topic:

"The good things given by God are but a path to lead us to him, a ladder to ascend on high, not a tomb in which to bury ourselves. We should not cling to happiness or greet its passing with a hollow laugh, for it is fleeting. Nor should we exult when men applaud us, as if we had already attained our reward for a virtuous life on earth. No, we are determined to press on through good report and bad. Such is the measured and moderate path pursued by the believer. We do not get drowsy, still less intoxicated, when times are good. And we are always willing to abandon everything if God requires. This is not how it is with unbelievers. Prosperity goes immediately to their heads, fills them to bursting; they are so befuddled that not once do they spare a thought for God or the spiritual life. In time they grow hard, and when misfortune comes they grind their teeth and blaspheme against God."

In the end though, it doesn't matter what Calvin said precisely, but how it was interpreted by calvinists.

Adam Smith wasn't exactly the neo-liberal, free-market trumps all champion either.

Given that Calvin's stated and recorded views run precisely counter to those ideas, it would require some pretty significant mental contortions to characterize anyone with those views as "Calvinist".

That reminds me of the recent statement by the NYT's Dean Baquet that they don't "get religion" [http://www.npr.org/2016/12/08/504806512/new-york-times-execu...]. It's certainly true that many current ideas and worldviews have been influenced by religious thought, but if one wishes to speak credibly about such things, getting some basic facts correct should be among the prerequisites. Apart from that, one won't effectively address the issue and is likely to come across simply as an anti-religious bigot. For some, that may not be a concern, but given the current environment of "fake news" and "alternative facts", I'd suggest that it's a counterproductive approach.

>Given that Calvin's stated and recorded views run precisely counter to those ideas, it would require some pretty significant mental contortions to characterize anyone with those views as "Calvinist".

So, just like being pro-war, racist, etc, but considering oneself a good Christian?

>but if one wishes to speak credibly about such things, getting some basic facts correct should be among the prerequisites.

"What Calvin wrote" and "what calvinists believe" are two almost orthogonal topics. Even more so "what calvinists practice in real life".

Moreover you won't find many scholars that disagree with regards to whether calvinism had an influence on seeing wealthy as "good", e.g:

http://www.ucdenver.edu/faculty-staff/bgoodric/Pages/Protest...

"Now, it's rather natural, if one is a Calvinist, to be constantly looking for any little indications that God does approve of oneself, that God has predestined one to be redeemed, that one is "of the elect" of God. And how might God give any promising little hints? Well, material success is one way. If one has a successful business, God seems to be smiling on one! And as for those poor destitute farmers who just lost everything they owned due to a drought, well, God is all-powerful, and must have decided that they should suffer. And who are we miserable sinners to disagree, and thwart the plans of God?

Thus, the Calvinist develops a European version of India's infamous caste system. In ancient India, foreign conquerors solidified their conquest by imposing a religion on the populace. According to this religion, there were set classes or castes of people, and anyone born into the poor castes must have done something in a previous life to deserve such punishment. Similarly, the Calvinist attributes prosperity and poverty to the mysterious workings of God. (Notice that in both cases these beliefs serve to legitimize whatever the status quo power is. The wealthy and powerful, whether in ancient India or in post-Renaissance Switzerland or 18th century Scotland, are presented as justifiably wealthy. And the poor or "untouchable" are dismissed as unworthy of any better treatment. These are classic examples of ideology.)

Dickens captured exactly this peculiar combination of self-punishment, self-righteousness, and misanthropy in his character Scrooge. Scrooge isn't a simple hoarder. Scrooge's avarice is a result of his secularized "Calvinist work ethic.""

You seem to know what your are talking about. So let me ask you, if it was not Calvin who was the source of this idea, then which religious leader was?

The idea of "getting rich" as a sign of gods favor was probably started in modern USA by the Pentecostal and charismatic movements probably around the 50s. It is called prosperity theology and Calvinists have been some of it's most notable opponents. Famous modern Calvinist preachers like Paul Washer and John Piper have made a name for themselves by criticizing prosperity theology.

That said, even prosperity theology, as perverted as it is in my opinion, still sticks to basic Christian tenets like "blessed are the poor" and the importance of charity to the poor.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology

That's hard to say since that general idea is probably among the most common elements of religions going back as far as we have records of religion, e.g., Mesopotamia, etc. -- curry favor with the gods through some act of devotion or virtue (though the latter works only if they're "good" gods) and they'll owe you and grant you some token in return. On the other hand, cross them and they'll smite you.

There are relatively few strains of religious thought that decouple prosperity from pleasing gods or God, but the Calvinist strain in Christianity is definitely one of them.

>what sort of religious tradition they gravitate towards (which has nothing to do with belief, even atheists have attitudinal religious positions).

Yep. Religion shapes a culture, and the impact is there even 2 and 3 centuries after people have "stopped believing", in laws, attitudes, ethics, etc.

"I don't have any children, why do I have to pay property tax to fund my towns schools? I'm being ripped off!"

Because an educated populace is necessary to support their prosperity. Those kids will enter the workforce, provide social stability, demand goods and services, and pay taxes that support other people including retirees.

Actually, I estimate that I do pay a fairly high percentage of my kids' education. My house is among the most highly taxed, and my kids are among the cheapest to educate. In reality, I'm also paying to educate other peoples kids.

But it amuses me to think of a system where I pay 100% of their education, but reap 100% of the economic benefits stemming from that education. One idea is a deal, where you agree to pay 100% of your kids' educational costs, and in return, their future payroll taxes are paid directly to you. It's actually a horrifying idea, but it lets people think about the relative amounts of money that we're talking about: A few thousand dollars per year for 13 years, followed by many more thousands of dollars per year for four decades.

I'd never thought about it like that before; excellent point.

>"I don't have any children, why do I have to pay property tax to fund my towns schools? I'm being ripped off!"

We hear a variation of this in FL all the time from retirees. Their children are grown and they've already paid for schools in their previous state!

Ok, thanks for moving here, then.

But they're perfectly content to bankroll their incarceration down the line.

And they will be having their care bills paid in 10 years time by ... the same teenagers going through school now.

What goes around should come around.

I think you correctly identified the symbiotic relationship. If seniors expect their benefits to be fulfilled, they need to invest (jobs, education, etc.) in very people who are paying their entitlement.

Stan Druckenmiller gave a talk about this very subject called "Generational Theft":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbgIiAnpcPc

The chart from that talk showing the reversal of investing in the young vs the old:

http://www.businessinsider.com/stan-druckenmiller-on-generat...

If only it were symbiotic. It's parasitic.

I don't know how "direct" this is, but I generally see my taxes as going to making the strangers I see on the street happier and nicer to be around, because they have fewer problems to deal with.

Maybe this is because my city's main "export" is tourism, so large amounts of everyone's taxes here get spent on parks and cleaning up litter/graffiti and etc., rather than on things that the locals would prioritize. I don't see that as a bad thing: there are a lot of tourists here, and when they're unhappy, they can be awful people. If my city government spends my money to make them happy, then that's a bunch of potential assholes that are instead nice, friendly people! (I can only imagine how much more I would care about this if I worked in hospitality.)

Perhaps one thing to consider is that the person who isn't happy paying for others may not themselves be benefiting from society. Perhaps by a purely financial view they are better off, but that is but one metric of their life. What is going on in their life that makes them prefer every man for himself?

A better way of looking at the results of the tax spending is the money brought in by the tourists (who like to visit nice, clean places) which in turn helps the local economy.

My usual answer to that statement is that the quality of the local school system has a direct relation to property values. Consider school taxes as a form of home improvement!

Another answer: you aren't paying for the current kid's education, you are paying back (with interest) the cost of your own education.

While I generally agree that, yes, you're in essence paying back your own education.

But also you're ensuring that your world has a functioning economy so all that money you've saved to look after yourself in your old age is worth something and there are actually things to buy with it.

If your country goes to pot around you because you didn't raise a couple of functional generations to replace you (even if you didn't have kids) you're effectively screwed, an old person in a Mad Max world

And another answer: Do you really want to live in a society where only the wealthy have any sort of basic education?

Then why does the bill change depending on the assessed value of my property?

Because property tax is an awful, dreadful way to fund public education.

A progressive percentage of earned income above given thresholds (either poverty or happiness) would make much, much more sense.

> Because property tax is an awful, dreadful way to fund public education.

I don't think the property tax is the issue. It's doing school funding at a sufficiently granular level that's the real issue—poor cities / districts won't have the same sort of tax base, be it collected via income, property, excise, sales, or somehow else, as do rich districts.

What you want is some sort of redistributive system. Really large districts (like entire states or countries) accomplish this as rich areas within the district subsidize less wealthy ones. Grants from higher levels of government, paid for by taxpayers in other parts of the jurisdiction, also accomplish this.

That said, money isn't everything...San Francisco has a tremendously wealthy tax base and an unusually small student population due to the city's demographics, but the schools aren't anything to write home about.

Property tax is progressive because rich people purchase more property, and real property tax is critically important because real estate is a permanently finite resource.

Progressive taxes are not linear, they are at least quadratic. The way many property taxes are set up now in the states, they are flat taxes by zoning - ie, residential pays a fixed rate.

I would absolutely argue for progressive property taxes, and that you either need steep progressive property taxes or homesteading rights to avoid the current bubble of land hoarding by the rich, but we don't have those now, and they should fund other things (and at a much less granular scale) than public education.

> A progressive percentage of earned income

Highly dense young-urban-professional work-centric neighborhoods low on kids (SF, LA, SJ) would receive more money, suburban, rural and single-industry neighborhoods (towns in San Bernardino, Fresno counties) dominated by families with children would receive less money.

Because you're good for it, it's convenient to assess and collect, and the property itself isn't going anywhere. I'm not big on property taxes on general principle but it's a somewhat economical approach to implementing the hyperlocal school board approach that Americans seem to prefer despite the proliferation of bureaucracy it imposes.

>Because you're good for it, it's convenient to assess and collect, and the property itself isn't going anywhere.

OK but what does that have to do with paying back the cost of my own education?

The American Dream is basically get born, go to school, go to work and work hard, get a car, get your own home, and settle down with someone you like and drop a couple of kids. taxing property balances out these costs and benefits in a very approximate indirect way without much accounting.

For me it's not very important that there should be accurate accounting of such things. I just don't lose much sleep over tax money going to education because it keeps a virtuous cycle going. I didn't even grow up in the USA, but what my home country lost in direct tax revenue may be made up over the long run by increased international trade.

I really don't see any point in trying to exhaustively account for public goods at the individual level, which only results in more bureaucracy and promotes a penny-pinching mentality that is inimical to the undertaking of increasing public goods and economic development.

>I really don't see any point in trying to exhaustively account for public goods at the individual level

I certainly agree that funding for public education cannot be considered a repayment for some personal debt, which is why I objected to the comment I first replied to.

Think of it like this: your public education was provided not for a fee, but for an equity stake in You, Incorporated.b the more you earn, the more the state gets back, like an investor.

But many people have no public education, and they don't get a break on their property taxes.

That's a pretty usurious interest rate for single people.

Why does my education become retroactively more expensive if I move to a different town?

That only happens if you move to a more expensive town, which could be because of the benefit you got from your education. You could always go somewhere cheaper and poorer and pay less.

Because the US doesn't have a uniform tax rate, due to a federated power structure.

If you don't like it, you don't have to migrate.

Please read the comment I was responding to.

The point of schools isn't to benefit children, it's to instill certain traits that are in the state's best interest for their future citizens to have.

Little of column a little of column b. The state, it's made of people, including those children.

> An example of this is recognizing the importance of costs (like schools) from which I receive no direct benefit (if I do not have children in those schools).

Property tax (and subsequent education funding) is semi-voluntary. One can always downgrade to a smaller/cheaper abode and [somewhat] opt out of the system. This makes even more sense if one is childless.

Let's say two people have a net worth of $1,000,000 each. Person A has a $950,000 house and $50,000 in the bank. Person B has a $200,000 house and $800,000 in the bank. 80% of B's possessions are not subject to property tax.

Your comment reminded me of this, which you might find interesting (if only to understand an opponent's thoughts): http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Public%20Schools/P...

Perhaps understanding, but I found it perplexing. Maybe it's because I was in more AP / IB classes, but I did not find education "indoctrination" and "uniform" (so I think his second concluding paragraph was bogus).

I am also not sure what "state religion" David is talking about in the third concluding paragraph that I was "indoctrinated" into. I will note that the continuous citation of Britain in the early 19th century is problematic to me, as the education set up back then was usually run by the Church of England and other religious institutions (http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/warks/vol7/pp486-500). Not the best example of a free market system here.

I personally am not terribly convinced that a completely private system would work out very well for the under-advantaged in both income and location, particularly the later. This is an issue even in public schools which have no profit motive; how would adding a profit motive help groups that are by definition unprofitable? In America we already have a widening school inequality issue that in part is due to our use of property taxes as funding. (https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/propert...).

I do think that mixed systems (something like charter schools) can work if quality control and accountability is in place. (EG: You hear pros and cons, but by and large the charter system implemented by New Orleans seems to have worked.) Elsewise, you're likely to see problems that, at worst, might resemble the "diploma mills" you see in the United States.

David Friedman is Milton Friedman's son and while he's a gifted writer, he also sees himself as the torchbearer of an ideological tradition which sometimes leads him into rhetorical excess.

Additional issues arise if we consider the problem from the standpoint of the child rather than the family. Most families can afford to pay for schooling their children, but very few children can afford to pay for schooling themselves. A private system depends, for almost all children, on parents caring enough about the welfare of their children to be willing to pay the cost of their education.
Most parents, in most societies, do care for the welfare of their children. In part this may be explained by altruism, itself explainable on evolutionary grounds, and in part by the desire of parents to have children capable of supporting them in their old age. These incentives are not perfect-there are parents who sacrifice the welfare of their children to their own welfare. But the alternative to allowing parents to make decisions for their children is not, as a general rule, having the decisions made by the children-five year olds lack not only income, but information and political power as well. The alternative to having a child's parents make decisions for him is having other adults-school administrators, politicians, voters-make those decisions. Parents may not always be altruistic towards their children, but a child's parents are, of all adults, the ones most likely to be. The argument against letting the parents make the decision is an even stronger argument against letting anyone else make it instead.

Here again, the empirical evidence is striking. Under circumstances of poverty difficult for most of us to imagine, British parents of the early 19th century managed to send almost all of their children to school-not for as long as our children go to school, but for long enough to acquire at least minimal skills. In this country a century later, immigrant parents routinely sacrificed themselves to promote the education of their children. We have yet to see any similar level of altruism on the part of those who control the government schools-say a teacher strike aimed at lowering teacher wages in order to leave more money to pay for books.

I'm not sure this guy actually lives in the real world. Surely there is a stronger case against public schools than this hogwash?

This reads like the thoughts of a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com