From: anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker)
Subject: Re: Transport subsidies - Was: Car Parking
Reply-To: anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker)
Organization: Maths Dept., Nott'm Univ., UK.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:08:15 GMT

In article <930108.150220.1l3.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew
<mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>What I imagine is a tax form that looks something like:
>
>"Your tax payment for the year is xxxxxxxx.xxxx ECU.
						 ^^^
	Umm!  This is some years ahead, then!
>						       Please indicate how you
> would like it allocated amongst the following causes:

	[Long list deleted ....]

	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.

>						      The idea is to give
>individuals the freedom to choose how their money gets spent.  Even if 51% of
>the population wants billions wasted on nuclear missiles, I don't want any of
>*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.  This is the
tyranny of the minority.  In this case, you might think that a good thing,
but the same applies to a huge range of expenditure.  Try another case --
if you neither have nor intend to have children, why should you spend any
of your tax on education?  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.
Those of us with children might get resentful.  Result -- collapse of the
state education system, and social anarchy.

	At the moment, we all contribute more-or-less fairly to things like
[subsidised] theatre, music, libraries, and so on.  I console myself for
the expenditure on theatre [which I, personally, dislike] with the thought
that theatre-goers are cross-subsidising "my" library.  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.

>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.

>							       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.  (b) Unless they can specifically target a
troop train, anyone killed is almost certain to be civilian.  (c) There
is no way to create the chaos caused by targetting a shopping centre
[the tunnel evacuates itself in a pre-determined time, you just have
to stop new trains going in, whereas if you warn a shopping centre, the
police have to seal off whole areas, divert lots of people, etc.].  (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.  (e) It
would be exceedingly easy to smuggle a bomb onto any of the existing
ferries -- why have they not been targetted?

>		    I predict that Channel Tunnel will be a dismal failure,
>and the investors won't get a decent return on investment.

	I hope you're wrong.  *I* invested, not for quick [or even slow]
profit, but because I thought it was a good thing in principle.  [I once
worked out how much of it I own, and it's some tiny fraction of a milli-
metre.]  I *still* think it's a GTIP, and shall be very sorry if it's a
failure [not just because of the money].  If, as I hope, it *does* work,
then I think I deserve a reasonable return, for taking the risk all those
years ago.  That's what it's all about, after all.  Noting that the share
price is pretty much the same as the issue price, it looks as though the
market still thinks of it as a reasonable bet.

>>	 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.

>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.  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.  (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.  (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?  Hence the increase in selfishness alluded to above.

>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]!"

	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?  Well, it needed be so crass, it could be a cancer clinic, or whatever.
Effectively, benefactions stop being a bolt-on goody, and become the way
in which rich people avoid taxes.  It's a sort-of return to feudalism,

-- 
Andy Walker, Maths Dept., Nott'm Univ., UK.
anw@maths.nott.ac.uk
Newsgroups: uk.misc