From: fofp@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes)
Newsgroups: uk.misc
Subject: Re: Transport subsidies - Was: Car Parking
Date: 16 Dec 92 13:33:08 GMT
Distribution: uk
Organization: Edinburgh University

snail@lsl.co.uk writes:

>Maybe they had the car before they ran out of money. Maybe they had the car 
>before they were prevented from using the roads. Some people!

Well obviously they could sell the car to get some money. Life is
possible without a car you know.

>> Are you suggesting that in a free market, with people paying for resources
>> they use, travel by *all* means will be prohibitively expensive?  More
>> expensive than the cost of running a car now?  More expensive than the money
>> they won't be being taxed to pay for the roads?  If so, on what reasoning do
>> you base this assertion?

>Well, just looking at the current economic miracle is quite a good
>justification of this.

No cigar. This government *increased* the tax base for all but around
the top 10% of income earners.

Also, the spare money that flowed back into the economy after the income
tax cuts went on housing. The reason for that is that (shock horror),
housing is a free market. NOT!!!!!

Since the government subsidises buying a house through mortgage tax
relief. Or to put it more accurately, people like me who don't own a
house subsidise house owbers through mortgage tax relief, houses became
the most tax-efficient way to save that extra lolly. Add to that some
further government interference by discounting some house prices and
they had a fine asset-bubble going. The results of which are the current
recession. I blame homeowners and government in about equal proportions
for this one.

And this has to be a tricky example for all you people who attempt to
make government seem like some sort of rotary club benevolent
organisation. Let's look at how mortgage tax relief works:

* Government says to everyone: "pay me money or you go to jail."

* Government says "but if you own a house, you can pay me less."

Results:

* Homowners (the richer part of the population) are subsidised by
  non-homeowners (the poorer part of the population) in what amounts to a
  redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich.

* House prices are higher than they'd be in the free market due to
  homeowners not having to personally pay their entire mortgage.

* This extends house prices further out of reach of those who are being
  charged for the privilege of other people owning houses.  So they lose
  doubly. 

* Because of the tax advantages, a lot of British wealth is tied up in
  housing (which sits there producing exactly nothing) rather than
  industry (which produces real wealth for the economy). Industry, being
  starved for cash, has to pay more for it and this both makes it
  uncompatitive and reduces the time-horizon for an expected return on
  investment. Short-termism becomes prevalent.

So, with government intervention in the free market, homeowners get
richer at the expense of the poor and the whole economy gradually gets
poorer thus increasing the numbers of the poor.

Libertarian solution: choice. Ask people "would you, or would you not
like to donate money to help people own a home, even if you haven't got
one?"

We've argued transport and health into the ground. Let's see some
statists defend this one.

>> However, the bus fare will no longer include road tax, petrol tax or VAT. 
>> You have to look at the whole picture.

>Well I'm glad you're abolishing VAT, thats a tax on the poor anyway.

Interesting that we agree on abolishing taxes whenever *your* favourite
group is concerned but not when it is advocated for everyone. This
doesn't sound like democratic fairness to me. Care to explain it?

>>> I regard toll roads are more selfish, since it removes peoples individual
>>> freedom (that word again) of movement - unless of course they have that key
>>> ingredient MONEY.

But in your arguments you support a tax system that *jails* people if
they don't have the money to pay the government's "fare". I'd really
like you to either renounce forcible taxation or address this
inconsistency. You can't get much less freedom to travel than being in jail.

>> They wouldn't all do it.  Unless there was a monopoly or a cartel.  And I
>> believe that part of what FoFP is suggesting is that there should be strong
>> action taken against monopolies and cartels.

>I've never seen such suggestions. I have seen him state that company directors
>will have not ltd company protection. That doesn't prevent companies behaving
>in a disreputable manner. Money is power, and they'll have more power under
>the schemes fofp (and now you) advocate.

Money is only power if you can *buy* political influence. When the only
political influence to be had is the right to protect you, I doubt the
companies will be buying.

On the idea of a monopolies commission. Arguments here have convinced me
that it's a tricky point. Monopolies could be dangerous, but a
monopolies commision would give government too much control. I need to
think about that one.

>snail@lsl.co.uk      

FoFP