dhbailey wrote:
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 15.01.2007 John Howell wrote:
Doesn't matter if it's taxes, or direct subsidy as in Europe.
Not to disagree, but what, exactly, is the difference between paying
for something by taxes, or directly subsidising it. I always assumed
direct subsidies, by definition, came from the taxes, since that's the
only realy source of money a government has.
Johannes
Taxes we have no choice on paying (well we actually do have a choice but
most of us don't want to spend time in prison), and we don't all get
equal access to the benefits, whereas directly subsidizing something
through direct payment for it is a personal choice and is a payment
which is not forced on the entire population.
That's a huge difference in my opinion. When I go to an outdoor concert
in my city's park and don't have to pay a separate admission fee, that,
to my way of thinking (and I would bet to a lot of other people's
thinking as well) makes it free. I can't refuse to pay the few pennies
from my property tax which might actually be paying for that concert.
The same can be said for a "free" concert which is underwritten by a
corporation (or several corporations) -- it's part of their advertising
budget and comes out of the price of every item those corporations sell,
so by Andrew's definition such a concert isn't free, either.
On rereading this, I realize that I misunderstood Johannes' reply.
Unless I and Johannes misunderstood John's use of "subsidize." I took
it to mean that directly subsidizing it is paying for it on an
individual basis, but if that's a wrong interpretation of what was
meant, I apologize.
--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
