Robot Heart: Sex, Religion, and Politics

"At the core of Robot-Heart’s thinking is the notion that tax credits (and indeed, any policies) are free.  The idea that someone else will have to pay for them (whether now or later) seems like a complete fantasy to her.  You might think that’s absurd, but her view is the popular one."

Jeff Miller

I did not say that tax credits were free, and in fact acknowledged that in my argument (See: “Yes. The tax break will have to be paid for somehow.”) What I argued is that when faced with a problem, you have a variety of solutions with a variety of positive and negative outcomes. The object, for all of us, is to pick the best solution.

The problem is that we (and by “we” I mean both you and I, and people in general) have completely different ways of determining what is the best solution. You, for instance, reject any solution outright that involves more spending or unequal tax burden. (Side note: I think you base your opinion on the idea that the free market is inherently equal to begin with—or at the very least that the inequality is “natural,” and therefore okay—and that all money gained or lost is gained or lost on a more or less equal playing field. I do not agree, which is why it’s not as important to me if the wealthy carry a slightly heavier tax burden. It’s not that I think they “don’t deserve their money.” It’s that I think the system is inequitable to begin with, and even in a system where there is unequal tax burden, on the whole the wealthy still overwhelmingly have the upper hand.)  I am more concerned with the service rendered: how useful or necessary is this service, and is it worth the total cost? Then, if the service is worth supporting, what’s the best way to implement that service?

It’s not that I’m bad at math. It’s just that I have a different set of priorities when I do the math. You look purely at cost. I look at overall value.