The reasons you are presenting aren’t as solid as you’d like them to be. But I like that you blame me while taking no responsibility.
People keep telling me I’m benefiting from this army, without listening to the very real facts that I showed.
We are not benefiting from the army, it is making us less safe. All that money (near 50% of the US budget) is going towards and army that has nothing to do with preventing invasion. Instead, it went towards two invasions in the past decade.
Set up a system that is meant to defend us from threats foreign and domestic and I’ll gladly pay my share. But when we’re told that another country might threaten us with WMD, so we need to ramp up our military spending, I want out.
Fine, put that cost in to the goods that I buy. If it’s worth while, I will pay for it. If apples from Washington State suddenly quadruple in price, I have no problem buying apples grown locally. If bananas suddenly cost 10 times their price, I’ll stop eating them. Right now they both show up as the same price, because my tax dollars are funding a massive federal highway system.
I’m all for sanitation systems. I pay a lot of money, not in taxes, but directly to the city water system.
Now again, you fall back on this. What about all the kids that went to private medical school, and private schools for K-12? Why can’t parents pay for their children’s education? I get that school is important. So being able to afford school should be part of the decision to have kids. Having kids is expensive, people should know that before getting pregnant.
It doesn’t really matter who is at fault. If it’s more efficient and beneficial for society to replace everyone’s car when their brakes fail, then the government should do it.
However, the case is probably that because there are so many cars out there and brake failure is so common and individual preventative action is relatively cheap, that it happens to be more efficient to incentivize individuals to replace their own brakes.
In fact, it probably doesn’t even need additional incentives from the government, because if you let your brakes fail, then you have a pretty good chance of being injured in an accident, a probability that is much, much more obvious, apparent, likely, and compelling than drowning because a 100-year hurricane. broke the dam preventing your city from being flooded.
There are a variety of situations when teaming up makes good economic and social sense. Group based health insurance is a great example. Larger risk pool means we all pay a lower premium. There are economies of scale that can benefit us all, even if we don’t all chip in equally. I’m okay with that.
But this goes the other way as well. There are cases where spreading the risk reduces the individual cost in a negative way.
Smoking is the first that comes to mind (because I also have a smoking thread). Alcohol may be a better example. But the hypothetical damn is a third example. Each of these end up causing a cost to society–pain and suffering, that as a tax payer I am expected to alleviate.
If the true cost of these things were built into the price, it’s unlikely people would engage in such a risky behaviour.
Each year, congestion on our national highways causes problems. Idling cars cause smog, smog causes respiratory problems, that means medical bills. All that wasted gas is causing massive global instability. Then the highways have to be expanded to accommodate more drivers, which will cause more congestion.
If the true cost of a highway and a gallon of gasoline was shown to the individual user, they would probably make better choices. Or they would pay upfront for the risk they undertake.
All these failed mortgages led to the largest budget deficit in US history. That is a very real cost. Work that backwards and build it into the cost of those shitty mortgages that caused the mess. People bought them because they “thought they were cheap.” Now with a trillion dollar price tag, do they still seem cheap? But it’s not the people with the failed mortgages that are paying for it, the rest of us are.
Our system of federal taxes that are meant to alleviate suffering allow people to engage in actions that cause suffering, without having to consider the cost. And that’s all I’m asking for, let the costs be real and apparent. Don’t let it get spread out across 320million people (or 100million tax payers)
If your yearly bill for the firedepartment was based on your fire risk, you could then choose to pay the inflated bill, or take actions to reduce your risk.
If people living in a flood plane (plain?) were required to have special flood insurance, the cost of living there would more accurately reflect the risk that the rest of us have to bare (bear?)
When I was presented with a quote for home owners insurance, I was told, “doing x, y, and z will lower your premium.” I did x and y, then decided z wasn’t worth the cost. Spreading out the risk, and having everyone pay my home insurance provides me with zero incentive to take those steps, outside of personal responsibility.
Well, enemy armies haven’t shown up to take your stuff, kill your pets and enslave you. The existence of your nation’s army is an effective deterrent.
So your complaint is with how the army is being used, not its existence. I’d complain to my congressman if I were you.
What do you think your “share” will be? I’m curious how you think the math will work. Anyway, your elected officials lied to you. Blame the Bush voters of 2004 for rewarding such behaviour.
And your manufactured goods? And your medications? And your gasoline and heating oil? Let’s (very) generously assume you can afford to pay the (very) considerable hike in prices you’ll face. What about the other people in your locality? Are you going to take care of your own garbage hauling (since the garbage collectors can no longer afford to live there), your own law enforcement (ditto the cops) and in fact it won’t matter that you can pay the inflated prices in the stores, because the stores themselves will rapidly close as their customer bases evaporate.
What, out of spontaneous generosity? Or in fees and bills and other tax-like payments? Does your local city water system get any municipal, state or federal tax revenue to maintain or expand its system?
What about the kids who didn’t go to private school because their parents couldn’t afford it, but have the smarts and drive to be doctors? Write them off? Public schools become underfunded dumping grounds? Medical school is for the upper classes only? That represents a lot of wasted talent and potential. Public schools may not be the best places for nurturing talent, but a 25% gone-on-to-college success rate (for a decent public school) dropping to 2% (for a rotting underfunded inner-city hellhole) means fewer kids becoming doctors or other professionals that an aging population (including you) will eventually need.
Unless, of course, you’re confident that you can just ship in doctors from overseas as needed.
Right, so do you start to see how incentives can work for and against you?
If the government will replace my car after the breaks fail, I have a lot less incentive to fix them. You could make the case that I risk injury, but that doesn’t seem to stop people from things like smoking, alcohol, and downhill skiing.
By trying to alleviate the inconvenience I’ll suffer at the loss of my car, you’ve encouraged me to engage in risky behaviour.
The addition of the tax payer social safety net has made me more risky.
If I had to pay for my own safety net, as part of actions I want to take, I’d probably make different decisions.
You skipped over several of the most important words, like “much more obvious, apparent, likely, and compelling” and let me add “proximate” to that as well.
Not all the incentives, costs, and benefits work out the same in every case. You balance them to try to find the best solution in each situation. You can’t apply the brakes situation to huge public infrastructure projects or public health or broadly beneficial services because the incentives, costs, and benefits don’t work out the same.
And, indeed, in some cases we as a society benefit overall from more risky behavior, such as entrepreneurship or technological innovation or intellectual development (education).
And, again, in many cases the risks are not apparent enough to every individual. It facilitates an efficient society when people have to take fewer factors into consideration when making decisions. We are overall reducing burdens on economic, intellectual, scientific, and other activities.
In the same way we make it illegal for person A to kill person B for expressing an unpopular political idea. You might say that Person B should just calculate the risks of speaking out. Or you could facilitate Person B’s risk-taking by creating a disincentive for Person A to do violence.
Are you sure, I think it’s this rock I keep under my bed that says “enemy deterrent.”
Just imagine if we could send them the bill.
Like I said, if the cost of the Iraq Invasion had been spelled out, then presented as a yearly fee, do you think we would have invaded?
If those that were in favour of the war, were left to foot the bill (and repeat the sweet sweet light crude) do you think they would have invested?
Take the cost that comes from my taxes, and put it into the cost of the item.
As an example, let’s just say that 99% of gasoline purchased is used to drive on public roads (the other 1% going to things like lawnmowers and atvs). Take the taxes for public roads, and transfer it all to gasoline. Then, each gallon you use will pay for the road you drive on. And at the same time you’ll be less likely to waste it idling in traffic, or keeping your car warm while you run in for a pack of smokes. The people driving on roads are paying for the roads. Those that walk can figure out a way to pay for sidewalks. Those that bike can pay for bike lanes.
Let the cost of those things reflect their real cost, not the cost subsidized by other people’s taxes. Those that want medications inspected by the FDA can buy those, if you want it inspected by Health Canada buy those. Why is choice a bad thing?
I’d already addressed the rest of your post. See comments about schools and police in previous posts.
There you go, you reduced their burden of having to take into account the factors around them. As a result, they aren’t taking into account those factors.
A few years ago several million people didn’t bother factoring in the fact that interest rates can go up, and housing prices can go down. Great, you made it easier for them to drive the economy forward sending the Dow to record highs.
What I’m trying to say is that all your attempts to make things better are backfiring and making things worse. Individuals no longer have to take responsibility, it’s all spread out into other people’s taxes.
Well, the whole point of enemy-deterrent-underbed-rock is lost if you keep it a secret. Why didn’t you tell the world?
Pop-culture references aside, one of the major functions of a military is that you don’t have to actually use it. Potential enemies see that you are prepared to defend yourself and they look elsewhere for easier targets.
You can, at least partly - repeal the upper-income tax cuts Bush43 implemented.
With that president, that congress, and a sizable chunk of your population willing to believe lies if it promised them revenge? Yeah, probably.
I don’t know what “repeat the crude” means, but… yes? Heck, you’ve got a country full of people with $10,000+ on their credit cards.
And how this would be calculated remains an exercise to the reader. Perhaps as a semi-workable solution, all shipping companies have to kick in usage fees for the roads the travel on, calculated to pay the upkeep on these roads (and the electricity needed for streetlights and signals, for highway cops, for drainage, etc.) and trust that in the free-market system, they’ll just pass these costs onto their customers and eventually to their customers, i.e. you and everyone else. I’m glad you feel you can handle this across-the-board price hike. I’m sure you won’t mind at all when all the minimum-wage people have to move away because they can’t afford to live in your city any more.
Well, hiking gas taxes won’t kill you (heck, gas is pretty much cheaper in the U.S. than any other western democracy), but charging walkers to pay for sidewalks… heh, that’s funny. Gonna raise shoe and sock taxes? Hike the hiking tax? How much of this taxation is the fabled “theft” ?
Well, what is the “real cost” of a road network? It’s construction and upkeep? Are you going to track down people who use the road but don’t live locally? Put toll booths everywhere? What is the “real cost” of a sewage system, or a mass-transit system, or a police department, or a fire department? These things make a city livable. What’s that worth to you?
It’s not, but how do you feel about non-inspected medications about which grandiose and fraudelent claims are made? People who die after taking them are all Darwin Award candidates, best removed for the sake of society?
How very interesting. Like I said, I’m cool paying my share of the defence part of national defence. Oddly enough, it seems that “don’t have to actually use it” thing didn’t quite pan out.
If people want to be involved with national building, let them, just don’t use my tax dollars for it.
Yeah, I had a hard time typing that without laughing.
Remember when they said the war would pay for itself? Good times.
Sorry, that was meant to be “reap the sweet sweet benefits” then morphed into sweet light crude [oil]. I don’t know why but I have Simpson’s references in my head.
Like I said, when the price of gas spiked, every single supplier suddenly added a ‘fuel surcharge’ to our bill. Remember when airlines suddenly started adding weird extra fuel surcharges.
Well, the initial result was that it made sense for us economically to get larger, but fewer deliveries weekly. The net result was that fuel usage went down, eventually leading to lower gas prices (along with market speculation and a global credit crisis).
Look, roads cost money, lots and lots of money. But we’ve taken this attitude that’s is for the best and we all benefit. So there are roads every where, with lots and lots of maintenance.
But the cost just gets spread. No one is aware of the cost for each mile of road. So urbanites move to the suburbs, and suburbanites move to the outterburbs, and those people move even further. The cost of the highways, congestion, accidents, enforcement, etc is all spread out to everyone. So the people commuting an hour a day pay the same as the person that walks 10min to work.
The cost of living out in the burbs seems cheap, because those living there only pay a tiny fraction of the cost of the highways required to get them there. What I’m advocating is letting those people pay the costs for what they use.
I always think back to the disgusting urban sprawl that is Ottawa, with that massive expanse of nothing between Nepean and Kanata. Living in Kanata seems cheap compared to houses closer to the city. But put in a toll along the 417 and suddenly the cost of that highway (and it’s expansion) seems more real.
Instead, their cost of living is subsidized by everyone else’s taxes.
It sucks when you phrase it like that. But at the same time, if they can’t afford it, that’s tough. Why is it our obligation to subsidize things for those making minimum-wage.
[cue generic and overly dramtic rebuttle]Those people making minimum-wage would also love a new iPhone and matching iPad, should we the tax payer subsidize that for them too?
Sure it’s going to mean shifts in demographics. When gas goes up to $10 a gallon ($40 per liter) is the government supposed to subsidize that too? Or would we say tough shit, move closer to where you work. Or work closer to where you life.
I could go on but I choose not to.
Yup, that was a weird one. But seeing as I currently live in an area without sidewalks, it sucks knowing my tax dollars are paying for them to be built somewhere else.
But on a slightly more serious note, if the cost of using a road was $60 and the cost of using a sidewalk was $0.03, it would seem weird at first, but people could evaluate the costs for themselves.
Well, you didn’t have to use it. You chose to. And how “your share” will be calculated remains unexplored.
Well, write your congressman and make your feelings clear. As it stands, I gather the troops will be largely out of Afghanistan and Iraq before 2012 (I’m not up on the latest pullout schedule claims). Would you prefer to withdraw troops from South Korea and elsewhere as well?
Actually, it’s not entirely clear what was causing the rapid movement in oil prices. A fair amount of analysis points fingers at futures speculation rather than events in Iraq. The issue is a bit overly complex for me to delve into at this time.
Sure, and that’s been done in numerous places with toll roads and whatnot, though I’d hope some kind of computerized EZ-Pass-type system will make it as painless as possible, because having a five-mile backlog of cars idling while they wait their turn is stupid. Heck, we had a toll plaza here in Montreal as recently as 1990 for the Champlain Bridge (busiest in Canada) and it operated with coins or tokens and was a pain in the ass. I won’t disagree with tolls for very specific roads or bridges to cover to cost of their construction or upkeep, as long as it is done with an eye on efficiency. I’m not eager to do it to teach people a lesson about sprawl or macroeconomics, though.
Those people bag groceries, fix cars, lifeguard pools, collect garbage, run daycares, do hundreds of jobs all around you that you’ll only notice when they start to disappear. I guess a city full of just wealthy people is some kind of utopia, but nobody will know how to run the car-wash.
I’m sorry, I wasn’t aware the tertiary definitions for “generic” and “dramatic” ran as far as synonyms for “foolish” and “this shit’s all retarded”, but I admit I haven’t cracked open the OED lately.
Well, I’m sure the poor people will reach their natural place just by sliding along the slippery slope.
Of course.
Is this a monthly rate? Anyway, I find the argument odd, since you’ve spoken at length about how the system as it stands is being abused, yet are willing to trust people to self-evaluate costs. Which is it?
Taxes are like rent. They are the rent you pay for living in a country and for receiving the benfits. That’s the deal. You are not entitled to live in a country and receive the services rent free. Not paying taxes is freeloading. Capitalists are supposed to be opposed to freeloading.
Taxes are also voluntary in a democracy. They are not imposed ON us, they are agreed upon BY us.
If you don’t want to honor the contracts of a democracy, then you need to fin another place to live.
I think of taxes as insurance. The more I earn, the higher the insurance.
After all, a Porsche has higher insurance than a Yugo.
You might complain that the government “insurance” is wasteful. Maybe. But maybe State Farm or GEICO are wasteful too in certain matters - I don’t get to see their books to make that call. Or they may provide services I don’t need but they are part of the default coverage.
Do you grouse about your insurance company too? Do you hold them accountable for every penny and service?
whoo there cowboy, this is filled it all kinds of wrong.
I am not, nor have I ever, advocated freeloading. Figure out the cost for each of us to live here, and I will gladly pay my rent. I want police and fire services, and I will gladly pay for it. I want garbage removed, I will pay for that. I was going to say something about straw, but then I realized:
"You are not entitled to live in a country and receive the services rent free. Not paying taxes is freeloading. "
Are you sure you want to say that?
What percentage of Americans don’t pay any income tax?
My entire complaint is that I am taxed while others are not. Having more income doesn’t mean I use things more. In many cases, having to work all day means I use things less.
And every time someone proposes a new tax, this tired old argument gets dusted off combined with a heaping helping of guilt. I’m evil because I don’t want to fund your project, which without me wouldn’t work.
A more accurate way of looking at it is that we have both rent, and condo fees. Rent going to the actual cost of my dwelling, which I will gladly pay. But the ever increasing condo fees are going to each and every pet project some twit comes up with. And it’s all based on back-scratch system, you vote for my stupid project, and I’ll vote for yours.
Oh what’s that, you think we should have new equipment in the exercise room? And you want to re-carpet your hallways? But you want me to pay for it?
If you want an exercise room and hot tub, you pay for it as you use it. If I want it, I’ll pay for it as I use it. You see, that’s the deal. You are not entitled to live in a country and receive the services rent free. Not paying taxes is freeloading.
And yes, I hold my insurance company accountable, don’t you? If they are pissing away money, it means I can get a cheaper policy from someone else who doesn’t waste as much. If one company tries to raise my rates so that some people (not me) can get road side assistance, I’ll switch to another company.
Notice too that I have a policy for the car I own. It doesn’t include a bunch of things I don’t own, or that you want to own. I choose the policy that is right for me, based on my needs and requirements.
And also notice that insurance is tied to your risk and your behaviour. If you smoke your health and life insurance go up. If you’re a drunk you’re auto insurance goes up. If you have an open fire pit in your living room your homeowners insurance goes up.
And also notice that it is tied to your usage. When I moved closer to work, my care insurance was cut in half. I drive less each day and my house is in a “safer” neighbourhood.
Do you think your insurance rates should go up because OTHER people are bad drivers, and others still cant’ afford coverage? Why is it my responsibility to cover other people on my policy? It really sucks having in addition to my policy, and separate chunk of insurance to cover uninsured/underinsured drivers.
And yes, Porsche has higher insurance than a Yugo. I want my insurance to match the value that I’m getting, and not some made up value that other people think I’m getting. If you get and use a Porshe, then you can pay those premiums.