3 ms·

As another commenter pointed out, this "receipt" doesn't show that a huge hunk of what you are getting you are not paying for -- you are buying on credit. It a

As another commenter pointed out, this "receipt" doesn't show that a huge hunk of what you are getting you are not paying for -- you are buying on credit. It also does not show that there remains a huge balance due both before and after this "tax transaction" I can't imagine anybody walking into a shop and buying something without knowing exactly how much it cost (not only how much cash he paid for it) and what his balance was with the merchant before and after the sale. I think the idea of a tax receipt is a great metaphor, but if you're going to make a visual metaphor like this one, make it work like a real receipt does. Otherwise you are using the metaphor to deceive rather than enlighten.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
timr 16y ago
"Otherwise you are using the metaphor to deceive rather than enlighten." That's an exaggeration. The point is to show where your tax payment is spent, and that's what it does. Emphasizing borrowing does nothing to further clarify the question. More importantly, there's no way to know what proportion of the debt is attributable to any individual. It's a political question, because it deals in the hypothetical of how much someone would have paid, if we lived in an alternate universe where we ran a balanced budget. Nobody knows what that universe looks like. In other words: let's stick to the facts. If you want to talk about deceptive metaphors, well...I'm sure that certain politicians would love to have the ability to send every taxpayer a "receipt" that told them that some large percentage of their tax bill was borrowed and used to pay for social welfare programs or pensions or bombs. That would really clarify the debate.
- ericd 16y ago
  What's the problem with dividing the credit proportionally by the amount paid? If you represent 1% of the tax base, you also represent 1% of the borrowing, regardless of who that money ended up being spent on. I agree with the parent that it is deceptive to not include that figure. EDIT: Then again, it doesn't give a very accurate picture to those who are being subsidized heavily, so there are some downsides to that. If one could track the amount spent on each person from federal programs, that would be very interesting - how much your fellow citizens are subsidizing you might be pretty motivating or depressing, depending on how you look at it.
  - kevin_morrill 16y ago
    Kudos to @DanielBMarkham for a very good point. @Ericd the most likely outcome--the one currently happening--is that most of this will be finances through inflation. So those who save the most will give up the most in lost buying power. And yes, closely behind that is the people who are taxes the most. For the most part these two go together, but I think this will catch a lot of the middle class off guard as they watch their 401ks become worth less. That will be a bitter pill.
_delirium 16y ago
I can't imagine anybody walking into a shop and buying something without knowing exactly how much it cost (not only how much cash he paid for it) and what his balance was with the merchant before and after the sale. There are huge segments of the economy where that happens! Trying to make the customer think about the immediate or per-month cash expenditures instead of the long-term total cost is a big point of things like layaway, automobile leases, subscription-instead-of-purchase models, etc.
- DanielBMarkham 16y ago
  And usually such transactions are heavily covered by law for the very reason that the paperwork can be deliberately obfuscated. If you buy a car, for instance, or you buy anything on credit, there are clear legal requirements for what has to appear on your receipt -- because it can be so misleading. As a side note, I'm really sorry I used the word "deceive", which implies intent. Misleading is a much better word. I don't think there was any malevolent intent in that graphic at all. There are a couple questions here: first, is the metaphor being used appropriately? I think not. I think it could be done a lot better. Second, does the metaphor of a receipt even work enough to be useful at all? I don't know, but if you want to try to use a metaphor for cognitive leverage on this particular problem, a receipt is probably the best thing you've got. As computer guys, we have to deal with and talk about complex systems all the time. Using metaphors is part of that. It's probably the best tool we have. The reason I commented in the first place was to show that if you pick up a metaphor, you have to run with it as far as you can, then clearly point out where the metaphor no longer works. To do otherwise is to invite a lot of confusion, and, well, to be misleading.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

timr 16y ago

"Otherwise you are using the metaphor to deceive rather than enlighten." That's an exaggeration. The point is to show where your tax payment is spent, and that's what it does. Emphasizing borrowing does nothing to further clarify the question. More importantly, there's no way to know what proportion of the debt is attributable to any individual. It's a political question, because it deals in the hypothetical of how much someone would have paid, if we lived in an alternate universe where we ran a balanced budget. Nobody knows what that universe looks like. In other words: let's stick to the facts. If you want to talk about deceptive metaphors, well...I'm sure that certain politicians would love to have the ability to send every taxpayer a "receipt" that told them that some large percentage of their tax bill was borrowed and used to pay for social welfare programs or pensions or bombs. That would really clarify the debate.

ericd 16y ago
What's the problem with dividing the credit proportionally by the amount paid? If you represent 1% of the tax base, you also represent 1% of the borrowing, regardless of who that money ended up being spent on. I agree with the parent that it is deceptive to not include that figure. EDIT: Then again, it doesn't give a very accurate picture to those who are being subsidized heavily, so there are some downsides to that. If one could track the amount spent on each person from federal programs, that would be very interesting - how much your fellow citizens are subsidizing you might be pretty motivating or depressing, depending on how you look at it.
- kevin_morrill 16y ago
  Kudos to @DanielBMarkham for a very good point. @Ericd the most likely outcome--the one currently happening--is that most of this will be finances through inflation. So those who save the most will give up the most in lost buying power. And yes, closely behind that is the people who are taxes the most. For the most part these two go together, but I think this will catch a lot of the middle class off guard as they watch their 401ks become worth less. That will be a bitter pill.

_delirium 16y ago

I can't imagine anybody walking into a shop and buying something without knowing exactly how much it cost (not only how much cash he paid for it) and what his balance was with the merchant before and after the sale. There are huge segments of the economy where that happens! Trying to make the customer think about the immediate or per-month cash expenditures instead of the long-term total cost is a big point of things like layaway, automobile leases, subscription-instead-of-purchase models, etc.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago
And usually such transactions are heavily covered by law for the very reason that the paperwork can be deliberately obfuscated. If you buy a car, for instance, or you buy anything on credit, there are clear legal requirements for what has to appear on your receipt -- because it can be so misleading. As a side note, I'm really sorry I used the word "deceive", which implies intent. Misleading is a much better word. I don't think there was any malevolent intent in that graphic at all. There are a couple questions here: first, is the metaphor being used appropriately? I think not. I think it could be done a lot better. Second, does the metaphor of a receipt even work enough to be useful at all? I don't know, but if you want to try to use a metaphor for cognitive leverage on this particular problem, a receipt is probably the best thing you've got. As computer guys, we have to deal with and talk about complex systems all the time. Using metaphors is part of that. It's probably the best tool we have. The reason I commented in the first place was to show that if you pick up a metaphor, you have to run with it as far as you can, then clearly point out where the metaphor no longer works. To do otherwise is to invite a lot of confusion, and, well, to be misleading.