Take, for example, recent talk about the city of Forest Lake’s taxes. Before the city began moving forward with bringing a YMCA to town, the preliminary levy for 2015 was scheduled to come in at $8.32 million, an increase of 3.53 percent over this year’s property tax levy. On the other hand, thanks to rising property values, the levy will be spread over a greater tax capacity than it was this year, resulting in a tax rate that’s 4.5 percent lower than in 2014.
So, is the city raising taxes or lowering them?
Perhaps it depends on your point of view. If you own a home worth, say, $100,000, you were taxed about $320 by the city in 2014. If your home’s value stays the same next year and the city doesn’t go ahead with the YMCA, your city bill will likely be $15 lower. It’s hard not to call that a tax cut.
However, your home value probably won’t stay flat. Property values in the city increased dramatically. If your home increases in value by 6 percent, what was a $15 decrease turns into almost that much in a tax bill increase because your home’s value went up more than the tax rate went down. At this point, it’s easier to look at the $8.32 million levy as a tax increase, as keeping the levy flat would have resulted in a flatter tax bill for you.
Of course, if the City Council does strike a deal with the YMCA, then the point is moot; it’s a tax increase just about any way you look at it. However, the point still stands: there’s more than one way to look at almost any situation, and we’d do well to recognize that when someone frames something through a certain lens, he or she may be doing so out of personal bias, intentionally or not.
You often see this phenomenon during campaign season, a biannual corollary to fall that all members of a republic must suffer through. Differing sides of the abortion debate label themselves as “pro-life” or “pro-choice,” implying that the other side must be “pro-death” or “anti-choice.” During Minnesota’s 2012 vote on gay marriage, those against the amendment called themselves “pro-marriage freedom,” while those who wanted the constitutional amendment to pass took up the mantle of “pro-family.” I’m not here to promote one group over the other, but I will tell you that I spoke with members on both sides of the debate who tried to use language and labeling to woo followers implicitly – to win the debate before the debate could even be had.
This doesn’t always have to be a sinister thing. Of course you want your movement to have a positive name and a positive message, and if that earns you support, you’ve been doing a good job of messaging. Just make sure that someone’s not trying to use language and a lack of perspective to deceive you or alienate someone else.
In the two social debates that I brought up earlier, I’ve heard a lot of outlandish claims, from the idea that all anti-abortion advocates hate women to the idea that pro-gay marriage people want to undermine “traditional” marriage. These sorts of arguments are petty and an attempt to swerve the public away from the real issues at the heart of these debates. No one wants to be seen as supporting misogyny, nor does anyone want to be seen as associating with a cabal dedicated to undermining the country’s moral fabric, even if that’s not really what those movements are about. By using language and a lack of perspective, the less savory members of these groups shut down real discussion and attempt to win converts outside of the realm of ideas, dumbing our nation down in the process.
Rather than be swept away by a one-sided argument, listen to your better impulses. Look at as many points of view as you can, and you’ll find yourself better informed and able to relate to more people with empathy.
Source: http://forestlaketimes.com/2014/09/17/is-your-vocabulary-half-empty-or-half-full/
