I checked my mail last night to find Harry's comments on taxation,
and only Ray challenging the collection of facile nonsense, so
I'll attempt to put in my two bits worth...
On Sun, 16 Jun 2002, Harry Pollard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>Two directions for taxation: "Taxation according to benefits received."
>Perhaps a garbage collection tax - any time there is a connection between
>the tax you pay and the government service you get.
In my community, municipal services are charged this way, as a separate
item from the general municipal tax which covers things of general
rather than individual household benefit. That way the household
services can be adjusted according to usage, ie. sewer and garbage
rates according to house size and number of occupants.
>Then there is: "Taxation according to the ability to pay." If you've got
>it, give it to us.
As opposed to "you haven't got it, so we're going to indenture you
or kick you out", I suppose?
>This is the usual basis of the taxation we've come to know and love.
Because it makes a lot more sense to tax those with assets than those
without. How good are you at getting blood from stones?
>With "ability" taxes, there is no connection between what you pay and
>what you get. It is certainly an expedient way to tax, but it isn't
>fair, it isn't just, it isn't even moral - for people are coerced into
>paying for something they aren't getting.
I see. The rich travel by helicopter from point to point, so they
don't use the roads. They vacation in foreign resorts, so they never
use the parks. They live behind electrified fences so they never
need the police. They send all their children to private schools so
they never use the schools. How immoral, having to be extorted to
pay tax, just to keep the great unwashed sufficiently contented that
they don't storm the walls and stave their heads in as they sleep
soundly on the mountains of cash they've saved.
>Hence: "There is no doubt that the estate tax is bad - along with all
>the other taxes."
Good god yes, we can't have anything get in the way of the cementing
of the hegemony of the oligarchy. You know Harry, those guys who
set up the one dollar one vote system so they can adjust all the
legislation to enhance the privilege of the hereditary rich. You
remember privilege, don't you?
>Even benefit taxation is a bit dubious, for if the government is taxing
>you for something you want, why not let you buy it for yourself. You
>could probably get a better deal.
Of course, there's this wonderful process whereby the better deal
is achieved, while still generating healthy investment profits for
the shareholders. Take health insurance for example: the best way
to keep a healthy bottom line is to make sure you only insure
those who are guaranteed not to need your services. If your
mandatory checkup reveals a potential for expensive repairs,
why, all of a sudden you aren't eligible any more. Where did that
better deal go? Tough luck, that's the way the market crumbles.
Got to keep it free market and cheap so the deserving healthy
aren't subsidizing those incompetent enough to grow old and
sickly.
>I have defined "privilege" often. A privilege is a private law
>(privi-lege) designed to benefit one at the expense of another. Someone
>suggested "at the expense of a group". Quite so, but a group is just a
>bunch of "anothers".
>
>Of course it's always better to under-privilege a lot of people. It
>raises the value of the privilege.
>
I know you're just trolling Harry, though for the life of me I don't
know why. For some reason you seem to think it's more effective,
using a Socratic technique in an economic/political context, rather
than just coming out with what you really think. So I've risen to your
bait. Now what?
-Pete Vincent
