From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: uk.misc
Subject: Re: Transport subsidies - Was: Car Parking
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 19:51:03 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
X-Newsreader: rusnews v0.98

anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker) writes:
>         OK, so each taxpayer gets to roll his/her own allocation.  I've
> already replied to FofP that I think this means the collapse of all tax
> benefits, no matter how socially desirable.

What sort of "socially desirable" tax benefit did you have in mind?

>>                                                     The idea is to give
>>individuals the freedom to choose how their money gets spent.  Even if 51% o
>>the population wants billions wasted on nuclear missiles, I don't want any o
>>*my* money spent on them.
> 
>         Fine, but if 49% won't pay, then the 51% shouldn't either, because
> a half-baked nuclear deterrent is actually worse than none.

In what way?

>                                                       Try another case --
> if you neither have nor intend to have children, why should you spend any
> of your tax on education?

So that bored unemployed teenagers don't steal my bike and smash my windows.
So that my company will be able to recruit capable employees, and hence
prosper.  Next question?

>                           Well, you aren't *completely* selfish, I guess,
> so you might allow a little bit.  You could devote the hundreds of pounds
> you save to the NHS, and make yourself feel better that way.  Next year,
> the guideline expenditure for education has to go up to allow for you and
> those like you, so there is even more pressure to underspend on education.

And the guideline expenditure for the NHS goes down, so people have
correspondingly more to spend on education.

> Those of us with children might get resentful.  Result -- collapse of the
> state education system, and social anarchy.

Looks more like a slippery slope argument based on a flawed premise to me.

>         At the moment, we all contribute more-or-less fairly to things like
> [subsidised] theatre, music, libraries, and so on.

Really?  None of the music I listen to is subsidised.  In what way is that
"fair"?

>                                                       I console myself for
> the expenditure on theatre [which I, personally, dislike] with the thought
> that theatre-goers are cross-subsidising "my" library.

I'd rather have back my money which is spent on opera and classical music,
and donate it to Negativland to pay off their legal bills.

>                                                     I think that giving
> taxpayers the ability to hypothecate their taxes would simply lead to a
> [more] selfish regime in which all subsidies and benefits collapse.

I might think that a Labour government would cause the collapse of
civilization as we know it.  Nevertheless, you would probably want some sort
of reasoned argument.

>>How many people do you know who are actually willing to use the Channel
>>Tunnel once it's built?  Everyone I've spoken about it has said point blank
>>that they think it's a deathtrap and that they won't use it.
> 
>         Well, I am.  Just the thought of tossing about on those cross-
> channel ferries in rough weather makes me feel sea-sick.

So get the SeaCat.

>>                                                              I'm certain
>>that the moment it's opened, it'll be the IRA's number one target.
> 
>         Why?  (a) It's not a British Government venture, but a private
> one which is half French.

So?  I don't notice them carefully avoiding damage to non-British-Government
shops and office buildings.

>                           (b) Unless they can specifically target a
> troop train, anyone killed is almost certain to be civilian.

You think this will stop the people who are quite willing to nail-bomb school
buses?

>                                                               (c) There
> is no way to create the chaos caused by targetting a shopping centre

They don't want to create chaos -- just fear, and hence pressure on the
government.

> (d) The tunnel itself and its infrastructure is a rather hard target --
> it's solid rock with an inbuilt vent!  The equivalent of a car bomb might
> blow up the train it was on, but would scarcely damage the tunnel.

It doesn't need to.  A nice deadly fire will cause plenty of mayhem.

>                                                                     (e) It
> would be exceedingly easy to smuggle a bomb onto any of the existing
> ferries -- why have they not been targetted?

Replace "ferries" with "aircraft" and repeat.

>>>       I don't think that's the problem.  The real problem is that *nothing
>>> would get money until it became evident that there was a crisis.
>>What makes you think that this isn't the case already?
> 
>         It *is* the case already.  But governments can respond instantly
> the crisis looms, whereas your scheme presumably has to wait for the menu
> to work its way through.

No, government can include "Crisis fund" as an option.  They can also divert
funds from those who did not give them specific instructions.

>>If people are presented with a sensible plan for how their tax money is to be
>>spent, what makes you think they won't mostly say "Yeah, go ahead"? Remember,
>>in this hypothetical scheme they have to spend the money on *something* from
>>the list, they can only juggle between categories.  I suspect that most
>>people will agree with most government expenditure.
> 
>         I suspect you're wrong.  (a) This will be a major political item
> each year, in respect of which the opposition parties will have their chance
> to re-run the election and to embarrass the government.

Which means that the government would have to stay on its toes.  If it did
something spectacularly unpopular, like (say) use the "European Integration"
funds to waste billions on propping up the pound in the ERM, it would have to
worry about its funding for European Integration the next year.

In short, government would have to consider the popularity of its actions
before spending money.  Sounds great to me.

>                                                           If this happened
> today, we'd have nice Mr Major and honest Norm telling us to say "Yeah,
> go ahead", while Mr Smith and Mr Ashdown would be on our screens telling us
> to zap Trident, spend more on the NHS, less on this, more on that, until
> we were dizzy.

Yup.  Why not combine the yearly tax request with a yearly rolling election? 
Sounds good to me.

>                (b) It would be even worse with Labour in power, because
> I suspect [to coin a phrase] that most taxpayers, and especially those
> with deep pockets, are not exactly Labour sympathisers.  It would be easy
> for the opposition to mount a wrecking campaign.

You are presumably reasoning that those who pay more tax will have more power
to determine the government.  But remember that for every person earning
lots, there are several people earning little.

If the government faces organized wrecking, it just has to increase the tax
grab percentage.  Hence those who do the wrecking, suffer.

If enough people hate Labour that they can wreck it by not paying for things,
surely that means Labour shouldn't have exclusive power anyway?

>                                                    (c) Even the members of
> the Cabinet don't agree with most government expenditure;  they compromise.
> Faced with the chance to break open all the packages, how could anyone
> resist?

Most people don't have the time, inclination or mental ability to
investigate.  Again, I direct you to the statistics regarding the number of
people who don't bother to find out how much benefit they are entitled to, or
don't bother to claim it.  And those people are being offered money, whereas
in my scheme the taxpayers don't get any financial reward for meddling.

>>Fewer still would refuse to spend on a couple of things and add the money to
>>other categories.  Very few would work out their own spending plan.  Hardly
>>any would allocate all their tax money to just one or two categories, and
>>even if lots of them did, what's the chance of them all choosing the same
>>categories?
> 
>         Even when Mr Smith or Mr Ashdown or the Daily Mirror or the Sun or
> the Times is running a campaign?  "Tell the Queen we love her -- put zero
> against item 1234 [Gay Lib] and double the amount against 2345 [Restoration
> of Windsor Castle]!"

Fine.  I'd be putting zero against 2345 myself.  If not enough people want to
spend money on Gay Lib, then government shouldn't spend money on it.

Note that I'm in favour of a written constitution and bill of rights to
prohibit discrimination based on gender, sexuality, race or religion, so I
don't think government would have much business spending money on Gay Lib
anyway.

>         Oh, there's another snag.  Some individuals pay *huge* amounts
> of tax.  What's to stop Mr Sainsbury zapping all categories except "9876
> -- new supermarket scheme for the Outer Hebrides" and devoting *his* N
> million pounds entirely to that cause, while effectively paying no other
> tax?

Nothing.  Remember that the schemes have to be charitable funds, though, so
in this case we'd be talking about state-subsidized supermarkets for the
Outer Hebrides.  Fine -- even if we assume they're all his supermarkets, that
just amounts to his giving those people a discount on items.  He's still
paying out for someone else's benefit.

And what if the Outer Hebrides don't need the supermarkets?  Well, he'll lose
money running them and/or subsidizing them then, won't he?

>  Well, it needed be so crass, it could be a cancer clinic, or whatever.

Good point.  Doctors are allowed to pay for the NHS, even though a bigger NHS
benefits them.  Shouldn't that be banned?

If Mr Sainsbury wants to spend his money on a cancer clinic instead of
Trident and motorways, I for one am all for it.  Let those who want Trident
and motorways pay for them.

> Effectively, benefactions stop being a bolt-on goody, and become the way
> in which rich people avoid taxes.

Huh?  How is someone "avoiding" taxes using this scheme?  So long as all the
funds genuinely assist others and do social good, that is.


mathew
Newsgroups: uk.misc