Digital Underclass 2: The future of books and libraries

[Keryl Raist]

Originally Posted by emilikins

Libraries do not kick people out of their homes, and generally get a very small slice of the tax pie. Our city, which is a major metro area, the average property tax payer only has $75-$150 of their property tax going to the library - and we're not a low tax city.

Just because it's a small slice of the pie doesn't mean it isn't there.

The question is: what social services are we as a society willing to evict people over? The library may be pretty far down on the list, but it's still there.

There's also a reason why it's far down on the list. The vast majority of people will say that yes, it's okay to toss someone out of their house to make sure the fire department, cops, and hospitals stay open. By the time you get to schools, probably about half of the respondents no longer think it's a good idea. My guess is by the time you get to libraries and parks, very few people think it's a worth while trade-off.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by Keryl Raist

Just because it's a small slice of the pie doesn't mean it isn't there.

The question is: what social services are we as a society willing to evict people over? The library may be pretty far down on the list, but it's still there.

There's also a reason why it's far down on the list. The vast majority of people will say that yes, it's okay to toss someone out of their house to make sure the fire department, cops, and hospitals stay open. By the time you get to schools, probably about half of the respondents no longer think it's a good idea. My guess is by the time you get to libraries and parks, very few people think it's a worth while trade-off.

While it is true that if you don't pay your property taxes the government can - and will - take your home...we all know that even if the pittance given to libraries via property taxes was removed our taxes would be just as high. People would still be kicked out of their homes if they did not pay taxes. The only difference is that instead of your $15-$20/year going to the library and literacy it would now go to something stupid like "Parks and Recreation" or "needed to pick up a hooker across state lines." That money would NOT reappear in your pocket.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

While it is true that if you don't pay your property taxes the government can - and will - take your home...we all know that even if the pittance given to libraries via property taxes was removed our taxes would be just as high. People would still be kicked out of their homes if they did not pay taxes. The only difference is that instead of your $15-$20/year going to the library and literacy it would now go to something stupid like "Parks and Recreation" or "needed to pick up a hooker across state lines." That money would NOT reappear in your pocket.

I agree with this generally, although most people where I live pay $100-$200 in property taxes to support the library (4% of property taxes go to the library).

But I doubt that there is anyone who can pay 96% of their property taxes, but just can't come up with the last 4%.

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

I agree with this generally, although most people where I live pay $100-$200 in property taxes to support the library (4% of property taxes go to the library).

But I doubt that there is anyone who can pay 96% of their property taxes, but just can't come up with the last 4%.

I doubt your doubt. I bet roughly 4% of those that can't pay their property tax miss by only the last 4%.

I have found that most of the people who complain about taxes do so because they don't want to pay taxes, not because they cannot afford it. And as libertarian as some people may try to sound, they'll squeal as soon as someone threatens to dismantle infrastructure that they deem essential. I'm sorry to be blunt, but I have found that is how people tend to be over such things.

Libraries serve many important social functions. They are probably the cheapest form of education, way to provide employment resources, way to provide business resources, way to promote arts and culture, and so forth. They are cheap because their collections serve so many purposes. They are cheap because their spaces provide so many purposes. They are cheap because they do what every civil society should do: share their resources.

Libraries are also places where every sector of society meet, from the homeless to the wealthy. So it isn't a matter of saying that they shouldn't be supported because they serve one group of people over another. No librarian is going to kick out a successful business person for using their databases for business purposes (and why should they, they pay taxes too). No librarian is going to give a homeless man the boot because they want to escape the streets for the printed word.

But if you really insist that libraries are a burden and ought to be dismantled, can I please insist that some of the government programs that I disagree with be dismantled. I mean huge globs of money would be saved if most of the roads were torn up, leaving only enough capacity was left for commercial vehicles and public transportation (heck, I'd even be willing to pay the real costs of public transportation through my fares if that happened).

Double Post

[Keryl Raist]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

But if you really insist that libraries are a burden and ought to be dismantled, can I please insist that some of the government programs that I disagree with be dismantled. I mean huge globs of money would be saved if most of the roads were torn up, leaving only enough capacity was left for commercial vehicles and public transportation (heck, I'd even be willing to pay the real costs of public transportation through my fares if that happened).

While I have not suggested Libraries be dismantled, I'm more than fine with people paying the actual costs of the services they use.

Also, ripping up the roads just costs more money. Selling them to private owners who may keep them up (or not) as they so chose allows the public sector more money to do other things, and shifts the burden of road upkeep to those who wish to pay for it.

Well, that last comment was heavy with sarcasm since I have found that many of the people who will adamantly oppose institutions such as libraries, public education, health care, mass transit, etc. will scream bloody murder if roads aren't expanded (or whatever their pet program is).

But I would suggest that a lot of people forget why a lot of these institutions. Governments usually fund libraries, schools, hospitals, mass transit, power generation, etc. for economic reasons (rather than idealistic socialist goals). Roads were originally built to facilitate the transportation of goods. Power generation was taken over by government to provide cheap electricity for factories, schools were funded to create an educated workforce and indoctrinated citizens. In other words, it is mostly about jobs. That doesn't change the fact that people such as myself support them for more socialistic ideals, but I don't think that the opinion of left-wingers should persuade the other side that these government services aren't necessary.

After all, libraries are good for adult education (which is poorly serviced by the government otherwise). Libraries provide valuable resources for entrepreneurs to do market research prior to setting out to create new jobs (which they couldn't afford to do if they had to pay for database access themselves). And the list can go on. These institutions are a net benefit to almost everyone ... unless you believe that we should go back to the "good old days" when these resources didn't exist.