Comments for Interactivity Foundation

Comment on What’s Your ‘Fair Share’? by Pete Shively

Pete Shively — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 06:52:20 +0000

1. I would also assume that when you raise the question of whether persons should pay taxes that are proportional to the services that they receive from government that you will interpret that broadly to apply to the value they've received (whether directly or indirectly through their business interests say) from a variety of government goods, including tax expenditures but also the value to their business of well regulated markets or well educated employees (or their own subsidized education) or infrastructure or peaceful international trade paid for in part by an extensive military. Under such a broad definition of the benefits received from government, Bill Gates (as he readily agrees) should pay considerably more (and proportionally more) in taxes (having earned millions thanks in some not insignificant measure to government provided or subsidized education, research (DARPA funding for computers and the internet), trained employees, roads, and trading partners).
2. Back to declining marginal utility and the theoretical underpinnings for different taxation models, I recommend John F. Witte's The Politics and Development of the Federal Income Tax (especially chapters 2 and 3). My copy is from 1985, but I suspect it has been updated since then).

Comment on What’s Your ‘Fair Share’? by Pete Shively

Pete Shively — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 06:26:27 +0000

1. You say your essay is not an argument against a progressive income tax structure, but I notice that many of the arguments you emphasize are precisely that and your rhetoric about “politicians, pundits and other traveling salesman” certainly implies (at the least) a strong distaste for many conventional tax theories.2. As you rightly say, there are multiple theoretical frameworks that we might employ: e.g., equal sacrifice, proportional sacrifice, or minimal (overall) sacrifice (maximum utility). Having raised the question, what is your preference?3. I assume that you are not equating purchases (and pricing of goods and services) with the obligation to pay one’s “fair share” of taxes.4. As I’m sure you know, the most straightforward and widely accepted theory for a progressive tax structure is the marginal decreasing utility: as you earn additional dollars, you value them less (or conversely, the first $10,000 of income is valued much more than the $10,000 on top of a million. As you probably learned during the course of your project, while experts from across the political spectrum disagree about whether we should have equal, proportional or minimal sacrifice and they disagree over the precise shape of the utility curve, they all (including more conservative economists) agree with the concept of marginal declining utility and that given that, and regardless of the exact shape of the curve, some progressive tax structure (higher marginal rates on higher incomes) is both more fair and required under any theoretical basis (equal, proportional or minimal). Generally, they just disagree about how progressive the rates should be, not whether they should be progressive.

Comment on Natalie Hopkinson by Why School Choice Fails (?) | The Artful Science of Education

Why School Choice Fails (?) | The Artful Science of Education — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 15:44:23 +0000

[...] and it is quite unpopular in academic circles.A new salvo in the war emerged recently. Natalie Hopkinson, in an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times, created some controversy this winter when she [...]

Comment on Is Online Relevance Killing Diversity? by Dennis Boyer

Dennis Boyer — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 22:35:51 +0000

You identify some concerns here that must be taken into account in efforts to use online discussion for deliberative purposes.

Comment on Room For Growth by Angela Huffman

Angela Huffman — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 17:32:32 +0000

I like this. It is a Native American tradition to leave a blemish/unfinished corner in their woven rugs because that is where they believe the Spirit enters—it leaves room for imagining the possible, for other contributions, and humility that the creator realizes her/his need for others.

Comment on Room For Growth by Tube feeders

Tube feeders — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 06:08:22 +0000

Hey, I just hopped over to your site via
Stumbleupon. Not somthing I would normally read, but I liked your thoughts none
the less. Thanks for making something worth reading.

Comment on On Wisconsin by Dennis Boyer

Dennis Boyer — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:55:10 +0000

What is strange about this whole mess is that only a decade ago former Gov Tommy Thompson (R) and and Marty Beil of AFSME were recognized jointly as leaders in collaborative bargaining and dealing with tight budgets. It’s no longer that type of Republican Party, it’s wingnuts in a tea bag now.

Comment on Reflections From the Storm by Airalin

Airalin — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 20:13:03 +0000

Oh and “Lamestream” is wicked cool lingo. Definetely going in the lexicon

Comment on Reflections From the Storm by Airalin

Airalin — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 20:12:03 +0000

The problem I see is that there is no focused emphasis on solutions. Every news variant reports on it, and every person posts comments about such things. I’ve yet to see any of the time exploring constructive suggestions to the observed problems. I thought we were all taught to give constructive criticism . With such a great grasp of the issues and problems I believe it hints at the potential to imagine the answers Persuasive communication, Negotiation, and strategical coercion are all techniques one can explore to leverage change. Lately i’ve been noticing the sudden lack of real negotiators. And I find Stanford teaching negotiation as bargaining! I don’t support teaching that it is ohk to not have an answer. Negotiators are supposed to be about resolution. While I may be personally practicing many years of making ideals functional and insisting upon at minimum a better solution, I never could have made any of the good happen with anything less than a “vicious” tactical approach. The outcome and the methodology seem contradictory but anything that deserves “fixing” needs that level of passionately lethal commitment . Technology has globalized our world,which affords the opportunity for individuals or groups of individuals to effect change. As communication develops and interactivity grows it only makes sense to proactively get with the virtual world and its technology. Webcams embody possibility. And always offer an escape portal as well . It bridges the lost parts of social interaction and adds new perspectives. I’d much rather see who’s opinion i’m commenting on as a person and not just text. Image and identity are crucial to progress. And connecting to others more personally might help with that disparate sense and lack of anthem.

Comment on Developing Skills by Airalin

Airalin — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 12:54:02 +0000

I think that exploring media conventions would benefit all aspects of this “IF” process. These conventions present successful models for discussion dynamics and established tools for generating possibilities. If no one is being graded then there is no purpose to cater to insecurities. Participating in a group or in the process is the point -finding any academic benefits like scholarships or practicum rely on the individual demonstrating involvement outside requirements or grade incentive anyway. Evaluating the outcome of each session’s generated possibilites as a practical method might be helpful as acknowledging accomplishment. And perhaps grow to a combined methodology of possibility. Suggestions for discussion topics, or even polls, or voting might encourage satisfied participation. No one wants to feel as if their input is automatically not taken seriously because they may be a student. Too often facilitators or people who have already attained a degree are prone to overlook student or citizen input. But Students especially are the ones developing the next methodologies and citizens bring need for practical application of “possiblities”. Guiding particpants through the development process and the development process seem like two different processes to me. Personally, I don’t want to be instructed, I want to compare and pose ideas as well as be exposed to new concepts. I find people are more motivated if they feel they are contributing to a purpose/process. I believe it encourages a tendancy to explore further and more freely. And to find new standards to hold oneself to. Individuals seeking interactivity would be motivated to participate if preset status like “student” or “contributor” was only volunteered within discussion if desired. Individuals all on the same level have a greater dynamic and would accomplish more. Splitting the discussions into two focuses- developing skills of the individual participants and exploring perspectives to progress possbility. I would think the two categories would naturally interrelate and develop each other. Hopefully the point of all this progressive thinking is to constantly better develop ones own skills. Shy participants can often be outspoken under an online alias. Although I’ve found that people who have something to say find a way to say it- there aren’t a lot of things that people, in general, seem to like better then a platform to tell people their opinions .