I'm not so sure that's so obvious. For example I put plenty into the pot on an absolute basis. Certainly there are those here that put even more "into the pot" than I do but I most certainly put in my fair share. I'm also not saying that I think you should put any more into the pot than you are already. All I'm saying is that once it's in the pot it's no longer yours but ours and if the money is collectively ours than it is we collectively (i.e. assumedly by a majority) that define how to use it.

In your OP you say:

As far as I know we have always been ruled by majority and there has been no fundamental change to that.

I think what I said was certainly not elitist, if anything it's populist but whatever.

The part about what you have being at the disposal of the civilized society in which you live is a terse but reasonable summary of what I said however that's a long way from concluding that means "anyone making over a certain $ amount should give the 'extra' to the gov to re-distribute".

All I said is that we collectively decide through our quasi-representative government the rules that apply equally to all that determine "how much" each of us puts into the pot as well as define what is done with that money once it's in the pot. You can complain all you want that you feel you put in too much into the pot or that others put in too little. You can also complain all you want about what is done with "our" money once it's in the pot. However yours is only one voice out of all of ours with no more or less say than anyone else's voice regardless of how much you've put into the pot.

I wasn't putting words in your mouth, I just wanted Cacto to understand the ideology of so many in gov administration.  While not agreeing on everything, as you pointed out, the general principles seem the same.

My elitist comment was supposed to read as "in addition too" as in elitists AND also...I was not putting you into the category.

Sorry I was sloppy.

That's what I thought you probably meant.

However I'm not so sure that the ideology of so many in government *is* that anyone making over a certain $ amount should give the 'extra' to the gov to re-distribute. I'm about as rabid a liberal you could find and even I don't think that extreme. I've never heard anyone say that the marginal tax rate should approach 100% no matter how much someone makes.

It does seem to me that those that cry the loudest about taxes are those that have the most left over even considering the taxes they pay. Certainly it's their right (just like anyone else) to complain about how much they pay or what is done with it once it is paid. They only thing that I believe is that once taxes are paid it's just not their money anymore it's ours collectively. I certainly realize that belief is not widely shared on this site.

At one time the majority thought slavery was fine.  So I guess that makes it right?

If you are robbing Peter to give to Paul you can generally count on the support of Paul.

I don't think anyone is arguing that the men with guns can force you to give them money.  Bravo. Congratulations, Mumble, you have persuasively made the point that the majority can make use of the government's legal monopoly on force to loot the produce of the minority.

Granted, they don't think all the "extra" should be taken (the fact your issue is with the % and not with the idea that administrators have a right to label something "Extra" plays to the original point of ideology).

I am working with, and interacting with administrators on the federal and state level right now who believe it is "Fair," down right PATRIOTIC, for 60-75% of that "extra" to be stolen under the guise of taxes and redistributed. 

If that doesn't reflect your beliefs, so be it.  Doesn't mean its not true in my research, education, and experience in this field. 

 

Tova:

Interesting. In Oz it's much the same, but with a few subtle differences. Local politics is mostly identical, which is why it's considered the most commonly corrupt and inefficient level of government around. State and federal politics involve strong party affiliations and consistent vote management, whereby the party has policies and these are given to the public service to implement. The PS comes back with a program, or a couple of options (depending on the minister involved) and the minister and/or his/her advisers make a decision about what to do or make alterations to the proposed policy and send it back for redraft.

However, as the minister has the support of a federal or state-level party policy thinktank it's much more difficult for the PS to be as influential on a high policy level. Where they can have strong influence is on application of policy, but they're constrained in that by tradition, public response and a very strong ethos of independence. Having read what you're saying though, I'm definitely starting to question whethere all this is quite so effective as I previously thought.

Traditional/Classic (or "mechanistic" management as opposed to more free flowing organic management) administration is being eschewed at most colleges now.  The Public Administration accreditation is ensuring it.

In other words tradition is out, considered old school, yadda yadda.  And since administrators here aren't accountable (technically) to the public..meaning can't be voted out and civil service makes it difficult to fire people...well ya see where I'm going with this?

Accountability will come I guess.  It'll have too.

That's a nice distinction.  There are think tanks here I guess...but we call them lobbyists...hahahaha.

I didn't know anything about Gov in Oz.  I'll have to read up on it.  You know some of the best ideas come from older countries who have gone through the administration issues.  They don't have to be Democracies either, administration is one of those things that has to be done no matter the form of government...and with a little tweaking can be applied to all forms. 

Something I think is hysterical..only because I didn't ever know it until recently, and always poo-pooed him...  Al Gore, our former Vice Pres, was/is a brilliant administrator.  He had a knack for getting rid of outmoded organizations that were no longer serving any purpose.  And also was a great consolidator, to help cut red tape and get things moving.  He was forward thinking and a go getter in the administrative world making significant contributions to govs efficiency in serving the public.

And the sad thing is?

Most people think he's only the global warming guy.

He was a much more successful administrator.

 

 

 

I think we should pool all the world's money into a giant pinata and have a huge party so people don't stress out so much over little things.

I guess if that's how you look at it then there's not much I or anyone else can say to convince you otherwise, however that's not at all how I view it.

First off loot implies some illegality or at the very least impropriety and in my opinion as long as the same rules apply to everyone it's hardly looting. AFAIK we both must abide by the same tax code. Secondly while the government is indeed a monopoly you do have a choice of monopolies that you can live under and that's a choice that's far more accessible to the minority that you mention and not so much an option for the majority. I hear Monte Carlo is very nice this time of year. Finally as far as the government having a monopoly on force, that's true up to a point. That point being the point at which life has been made sufficiently difficult for a sufficient number of people that they decide to take things into their own hands. There are a number of examples of this occurring in history and none of them are pretty, particularly for said minority.

It's a threat, certainly, but having said that I'm not convinced elected reps are necessarily better. It's really a matter of deciding which evil is lesser.

I'm speaking more of the cabinet/caucus level policy decisions, with plenty of staffers to provide party-line advice to ministers where needed. It's a bit of duplication, but it can mean even opposition (shadow) ministers have the ability to analyse PS-provided policy advice with a good basis for better decisions. In situations where parties don't vote identically - such as the US - party policy is more diffuse and weaker when it comes to directing ministerial/secretarial action, so what happens in Oz probably isn't applicable to the US, particularly when it comes to uniformity in administrative education.

What works for a population of 21M quite likely won't work for a population of 304M either.

I don't think you are doing this in any way so don't take this as a personal assault- I am tired of people pointing to how people in The Netherlands do things or in ________________ (insert name of small country).  Trying to establish systems in the US is like trying to unite all of Europe to conform.  That's why States have differing issues.

I understand why we need taxes.  I understand why people with more money need to pay more and those with no money can't pay anything.  I just want to know who thinks that it is alright for people to judge how others spend their money but think they shouldn't be judged for how they spend theirs.  Everyone has their reasons for wanting to pursue whatever it is they're pursuing in life.  Just as I don't think a person with 18 kids should have to hand over one of them to a couple who can't have any of their own, I don't think it is right for someone to declare "they have way more than they need so they should have to pay even more".

I'm not talking about law here.  I'm talking about sentiment and that is the sentiment going around.  When the VP of the US says that it is "Patriotic" to pay taxes, I have a problem.  When people won't take a job because they think it is "beneath them" but will happily take government assistance, I have a problem.

One of the big things that got us through the Depression as a society was a sense of pride.  My grandma grew up in that era.  Try to give her a "hand out".  She'd sooner mend socks and reuse sandwich bags to make ends meet on her own.  This generation thinks that they are owed everything everyone else has and shouldn't have to work their way up to it.

Someone commented earlier wondering if I was just afraid that I'd get it all taken away by the masses who have judged that I have too much.  I'm not afraid.  I grew up with nothing and have the comfort of knowing that I can be happy no matter what I have or don't have materialistically.  It's the people who grew up with plenty who now don't because they never worked toward anything who are judging that I have too much.  I just don't want to be the Ant to their Grasshopper.

Totally. But I honestly had thought the way the American public service worked was similar to the Australian model, bar that most of your upper level staff were political appointees. What Tova's been explaining is a real eye-opener.

In terms of what I was saying which drew your comment about nation size, I don't think ideological unity and party voting are impractical in a Congress and Senate of any size - you have, what, 1000 elected officials in houses of government? There's no reason your two political parties couldn't formulate policy en masse and vote as one on everything. India, which is much bigger than the US, has a party political system with Westminster-style party voting. So you see it can happen. That's just not part of your experience and, equally, not necessarily the best way of doing things.

But it's not impossible and the size of the country has no real influence on this.

Of course, if you've said this to end the conversation about different administrative systems, I'm happy to leave it all here and take it up some other time. Your blog, your rules.

Please take it up elsewhere.  That is not the topic I put forth to discuss on this particular blog.  Thanks.