home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: sci.econ
- Path: sparky!uunet!caen!jwh
- From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
- Subject: Re: NO! Re: flat taxes - yes!!!
- Message-ID: <V_C=LA+@engin.umich.edu>
- Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 14:24:00 EST
- Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
- References: <markts.721352037@mcl> <1992Nov11.103204.3702@ee.ubc.ca>
- Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu
- Keywords: flat tax
- Nntp-Posting-Host: tarkus.citi.umich.edu
- Lines: 100
-
- In article <1992Nov11.103204.3702@ee.ubc.ca>, jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
- |> In article <markts.721352037@mcl> markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark.) writes:
- |> >
- |> > flat taxes for everyone. people and corporations.
- |> > the 13% idea from jerry brown was the only
- |> > good idea out of the democratic primaries.
- |> >
- |> > you think this lets the rich off the hook?
- |> > check out how much the really rich actually
- |> > pay in taxes now.
- |> >
- |> > flat taxes will benefit the middle class.
- |>
- |>
- |> shouldn't people who use a service, pay for it?
-
- Yes.
-
- |>
- |> Do the rich actually use more services?
- |>
- |> I guess I'm in favor of progressive tax systems:
- |>
- |> - people who use progressively more services pay progressively more taxes!!!
-
- Taxes should approximate the level of services used. Unfortunately
- there are many things which are easy to assign to a particular person.
- These sorts of things need to be covered by some form of general
- taxation instead of a fee. I do not, however, believe that in
- general an increase in income correlates to a non-linear
- increase in services. A flat percentage rate requires those with
- more income to pay more in taxes. I think this can be justified.
-
- |>
- |> I think the rich should pay more taxes in some areas: it costs more in
- |> policing to keep the rich at a comparative level of safety.
-
- I disagree. Ask yourself where most crime occurs. It's not in
- wealthy suburbs, its in poor neighborhoods.
-
- |> After all,
- |> they are more of a target. Rich people should probably pay more for
- |> fire fighting: all those big houses take more firemen to put out
- |> big fires when big houses catch on fire. (OK, perhaps I'm assuming
- |> alot about crime patterns. But it does seem like there is more incentive
- |> to rob and kidnap well off people)
- |>
-
- Where do most fires occur? Most likely in older buildings. Who
- tends to live in older buildings, the poor.
-
- |> Perhaps the rich and middle class should pay a certain amount to
- |> subsidize the health , education and welfare of the poor. You could
- |> call it compassion, or you could call it self interest, since I think
- |> it is cheaper to subsidize the poor, than have the poor turn into
- |> violent, rioting, gang joining criminals who will car-jack your
- |> BMW or sell crack to your innocent middle-class teenagers.
- |> (funny, sounds just like the USA)
- |>
-
- Interesting, you want the rich to subsidize the poor so as to discourage
- the poor from committing crimes against the rich. You also want the
- rich to pay more for police because they are more likely to be the
- target of crime by poor people. Ignoring the actual reality of the
- situation, isn't this an argument for *either* paying more for police
- *or* paying a subsidy? It doesn't seem that the rich should pay
- for both.
-
- |> Of course, off hand I don't know of any studies that prove this.
- |> But it seems intuitive that there is a point where paying for more
- |> police to suppress the poor, is not as cost effective as giving
- |> the money to the poor for basic health and shelter, and so the children
- |> of the poor get out of the poverty cycle. (spending more to hire that
- |> 1 more policeman, might not buy as much safety as spending the same
- |> amount worker training, you get the gist)
- |>
- |> I think some attitudes towards the poor are more out of spite , than
- |> out of economically rational arguments. (ie let the bums rot!, vs
- |> give them a break, help them to get out of poverty)
-
- Most people are compassionate and generous. However, people also don't
- like to feel that their compassion and generosity is being taken for
- granted. When you subsidize the poor you create an environment where
- some people who don't really need your support will take advantage of
- it anyway. I think this is what makes people angry. This is also
- why private charity is better than government charity. Private charity
- is much closer to the problem. If the charity misuses funds, it will
- have a hard time attracting new funds. Look at the United Way. It
- didn't take long for their problem to correct itself. Government
- charity has no such constraints. It will get the money no matter what.
- It has no real incentive to do a good job. I support the notion of
- some level of government charity, administered through a negative
- income tax, because I believe there is a free rider problem with
- respect to charity. However, I believe that private charity should
- be the primary source of charity, not the government.
-
-
- James W. Howe internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
- University of Michigan uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
- Ann Arbor, MI 48103-4943
-