|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> I have great respect for cpbow. But on this issue I'm afraid he's mistaken. The >government has no right to one cent of my earnings.
>
> All of the things mentioned above can be done by private enterprise. And they would >be done by private enterprises, just as so many other things are, were the government >to not do them.
>
Paying for services we don't use sometimes just makes life simpler.
Your data vendor probably doens't have 200 different subscription levels
depending on exactly what symbols you use. Other things just go better
if one entity does it. Example, every house on the block could contract
with a different trash hauler but do I really want 5 times as many
trucks lumbering down my street on different days? Or do I have time to
attend a neighborhood meeting where we pick one trash hauler, one snow
plow, etc.? I'd have to think that having companyA plow one block skip
the next 2 (leaving it for companyB) would be a more expensive way to do
it. I guess we could put toll plazas every few blocks to pay for
plowing or repairing the roads. But toll plazas are terrible waste of
energy and time.
Most of the examples were local. And there's probably too much
concentration at the federal level. But some things are better done
federally than state or local. Controlling pollution that crosses state
lines. Assigning airwave frequencies so that stations don't
interfere. Investigating major transportation crashes. Consumer
protections. Basic research may be better paid for by the gov't.
company research is less apt to be published I think and needs to have a
quicker payoff. Some of the basic research provides the info to get the
ball rolling but never might get done in the first place w/o the gov.
> The fundamental question is philosophical: Does the individual *owe* something, >simply because he earns something? Does the "majority" have a right to part of my >earnings, simply because they vote themselves that "right"? What if I do not desire
>any of the "benefits" procured by my taxes, including those mentioned above?
That's a tough question for me, really. In one sense the answer should
be "no". But let's look at the benefits you turn down. You may choose
not to ride the subway. But in reality, you benefit probably because
the subway is carrying 300 people every 5 minutes into the city. That's
a lot of cars not in your way or a road that didn't need to be expanded
(that you *do* drive on). So shouldn't you help pay a bit of the
subway's costs? Of course if you trade from home, you don't drive in
the rush hour. But could you imagine the complexity of the tax forms if
we had to take surveys on every activity we did to determine how much we
paid?
Another philosophical question is money transfer. It'd be nice to say
no one should get $ from the gov't and all social needs would be met by
charity funded by voluntary contributions. But the local church or
Salvation Army may be good for getting food or a place to sleep if you
are homeless, but try going to the SA for the $2000-3000/month you need
to stay at a nursing home. If someone is unlucky enough to need years
of skilled care, it's likely that ole Uncle Sam will be paying the bill
before long, even if you had significant assets saved up.
Our society has chosen a capitalist economic model with a safety net for
those who fall through the cracks. The model works well because
somebody sharp can make a bundle, and market forces determines what gets
produced. But some people are less fortunate or even less smart if
that's what you want to say. What about the single parent at my factory
who makes $8/hr and pays $20/day for child care and (if she had it) is
charged $80/week for family health insurance. I get twice that rate,
and have no dependents. Is it terrible if my taxes are higher and even
some might go to her in the form of an earned income credit (something I
think ought to be expanded).
The safety net is sometimes abused. And yes some of the services we are
offerred may not be the ones we would choose. But the society chooses
what the gov't should do. And it is done in this country largely by
majority vote. Nobody's forced to participate in this society. As far
as I know, unlike some countries it's easy to emigrate from the US.
Renounce your citizenship and sign up with a country whose tax laws and
government you like better. Or do what you can to change our laws but
realize the changes are likely to be incremental and that by choosing to
live in the society, you choose to live under the laws of the land until
they are changed. I don't mean to sound mean, but to me that's the
choice.
Conrad Bowers
|