1505 Taxes and Cascade

Thursday, October 11, 2007

I got a $500 rebate check yesterday, under the STAR program (School Tax Relief Program, which includes a school property tax rebate program and a partial property tax exemption). The amount of the rebate depends on one's age and income level, and amount of taxes paid. They (Albany) determine your income from the income tax forms filed the previous April.

Now, I appreciate the rebate. But what bugs me is that it costs the state money to cut all these checks and mail them. I paid my school taxes several months ago, using money from a money market account, $500 of which I will now return to that account. So I'm out those months of earnings on that $500.

In these days of computers, would it really be so difficult to figure the rebate before I pay the school tax, and simply discount the tax bill by that much? Duh?

---------------------------------

This (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/science/09tier.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) is a New York Times article on "mistaken consensus".

I've seen mistaken consensus in action in The Company. It's when some person considered an expert comes up with a conclusion that a few others accept without question. Then, since there are now several "experts" espousing this conclusion, others accept it too. It cascades. Next thing you know, it's common wisdom. "Everyone knows" it's true.

Then, a few skeptics decide to actually test the truth, and are unable to support the conclusion. In fact, they may even prove it false. But since the conclusion is generally accepted (by experts who have never tested it, based solely on the acceptance of others who had never tested it, the cascade), these skeptics are shouted down, and even ostracised, to the point where dissension could become professional suicide - in a "reputational cascade".

The example used in the article is "Dietary fat is bad for you." 'Tain't true. The article traces the origin and mistaken cascade of the myth, and the difficulty combating it.

I witnessed several mistaken cascades within The Company. The source was almost always someone who stood to profit from the myth (not that they knowingly spread misinformation - they likely fully believed it - just that it wasn't true), and, on the basis of the myth, was promoted beyond harm by the time it was disproved. And, unfairness piled upon unfairness, the disprover was usually professionally injured by early dissension, and the final disproving of the myth never fully repaired that damage. ("Harumph! Not a team player! Rocks the boat! Yeah, ok, she was right, but still...")

Sigh. Yeah. The disprover was often me. It's a real credit to my talents that I actually did quite well on appraisals, raises, promotions. When I wasn't in the doghouse, that is. Which would last until I managed to kickstart a competing consensus cascade of my own.

There's a lesson there.
.