Travis Pahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:29:09 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Travis Pahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in part: >> >> >> >Too bad it still is being 'phased out'. NYC despite any claims that >> >> >it is being phased out is still a rent control city. >> >> >> No, actually the proportion of rental units subject to rent control (the >changing a proper noun is quite a bit different than changing the >definition of a noun. In other words changing 6th ave to avenue of >Americas really does not change anything. Annoying sure, but not >really that important it is just a name. But 'rent controlled' is not >just a name. It means something.
Then how does one know whether you refer to rent control specifically, or to all rent regulation in NY, including stabilization? Just because you use words in a way that invites confusion (such as with your lack of capitalization where needed) is no reason to think your vagueness is an advantage. > By changing its name you do not >change what it still is. The Pahl family probably includes several members, and if you want to be specific you'd better use their first names too. Granted, giving you first names doesn't change the fact that you're in the Pahl family, but there's still a need to refer to you specifically when the context demands it. > Other examples are abundant. The department >of defense is the first that comes to mind. Orwell has written quite >a bit on this 'doublespeak'. When the Depts. of War and of the Navy were replaced by a new dept., it needed a name. Would you prefer "Department of Military Affairs", perhaps? Until fairly recently cabinet departments had just 1 capitalized word in their names. (I think they were all like that at the time Defense got its name; HEW came a little later and I think Post Office had already been subsumed.) The Army and the Navy wanted equal treatment, so calling the merged dept. War (understood as Army's) would've been a slight to the Navy. > I prefer not to let the government >define words for me. "Control" is the word used in the legislation we now call "rent control", and "stabilization" the word used in the legislation now called "rent stabilization". Government made them up and had to call them something. Doesn't it make sense to call them by the names they were created as? If a company puts out a product under a certain name, doesn't it make the most sense to refer to it by that name, if it's their product that you mean? >We are >discussing whether rent control is better elliminated all at once or >incrementally as the subject line dictates. You then throw in that >they get tax breaks as if to suggest that someone makes the rent >control okay. If you want to talk about tax breaks in terms of >incrementalism, fine. I am suggesting it is better done in big >steps. Elliminate the whole income tax, don't try to reduce it bit by >bit or it will never get smaller. It's gotten smaller many times, and the trend has been downward for decades. Only the Social Security tax has been increasing, masking the reductions in the income tax. The federal inheritance tax has been limited to the point where it is now feasible to abolish it entirely. Proposals to eliminate it would not have been taken so seriously back when it applied more broadly. >> >If you notice, my comment was speaking of the future. >> How convenient of you to pull evidence from your crystal ball. >You are doing the same by argueing that somehow this renaming of rent >stabilazation method will someday lead to a free housing market in >NYC. There IS a free rental market in NYC, existing alongside the regulated one. The free market keeps getting bigger and the regulated one smaller. That's not future, that's recent past, thru now. >> >If a state as tax happy as Massachusettes could vote 45% in favor of >> >repealing the state income tax, then surely the country as a whole >> >would be above 50% in repealing the federal income tax. >> All I know is, they're above 60% in wanting state or federally supplied >> health insurance even when they're asked if they'd be willing to pay for it >> via increased taxes on themselves. >That may be true. That is why it is important to put politicians in >office that do not ask such questions What you're asking for is impossible where there's even a vestige of democracy. Why the hell would voters elect politicians FOR THE REASON THAT they'll ignore the voters' wishes on most major issues of policy? I mean, we know voters vote for all sorts of reasons, but I can't conceive of a plurality getting together to deliberately elect someone to ignore them from then on!! > and instead ask the question of >whether we should elliminate the income tax, or elliminate other very >unpopular government programs. Then why should they even ask THOSE questions? If they want to ignore their constituency on SOME issues, why not on ALL issues? >> Actually, according to what I took from Jeff Friedman at the Oct. Junto, >> the key is making jumps that are small enough that no potential opposition >> notices. >That would work if there were not other jumps being made in the other >direction (such as your government supplied health insurance >suggestion). That is not the case however. It works regardless of whether there are ALSO such jumps in the opposite direction. The fact that the jumps in the opposite direction occur doesn't mean that the jumps in your direction don't. Would you rather that ALL the jumps be in the opposite direction? Even if there are going to be 100 jumps away from me, I'd rather there be 1 jump toward me than none at all. >You do not know how to come out in favor of the handicapped and >against federal spending of education at the same time? I know how to do that, but I also know that I have no REASON to tie those issues together in the public mind -- in fact, that doing so is very bad sales technique! In Your Sly Tribe, Robert _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
