From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: NO! Re: flat taxes - yes!!!
Keywords: flat tax
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 05:13:41 GMT

In article <23978@hacgate.SCG.HAC.COM> tucker@shiva.UUCP (George Tucker) writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.103204.3702@ee.ubc.ca> jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
>>
>>I think the rich should pay more taxes in some areas: it costs more in 
>>policing to keep the rich at a comparative level of safety. After all,
>>they are more of a target. Rich people should probably pay more for
>>fire fighting: all those big houses take more firemen to put out
>>big fires when big houses catch on fire. (OK, perhaps I'm assuming
>>alot about crime patterns. But it does seem like there is more incentive
>>to rob and kidnap well off people)
>
>Rich people are much less likely to be targets of violent crime.  They
>are also less likely to suffer a loss from theft.  Amounts are probably
>larger, but that is not a State concern.  Rich people get more protection,
>but it is probably not proportional to income.  Sorry, this argument is
>not a good one for progressive taxation.

Just where do you think the violence would move to, if the rich and middle
class weren't paying for police service? If the very rich aren't victims
of violent crime, why do they spend so much of their personal income
on body gaurds, security systems etc.?

Anyway, I would be loath to argue for "progressive" taxation, but some
services WILL cost more for certain people.
>
>You might try the approach that rich people get more benefit from the
>infrastructure to produce their income.  I believe that would be more
>fruitful.
>
>>it is cheaper to subsidize the poor, than have the poor turn into
>>violent, rioting, gang joining criminals who will  car-jack your
>>BMW or sell crack to your innocent middle-class teenagers.
>>(funny, sounds just like the USA)
>
>Subsidizing the poor is good politics, and accomplishes nothing.  Helping
>the poor become non-poor is better economics.

I agree totally with helping the poor become non-poor.

But subsidizing the poor may actually do something: like reduce crime etc.
(it may not, but then I wonder why the USA has so much violent crime, and
other G7 countriess do not. The other G7 countries have social programs,
and the USA has very little. I am not saying there is a cause and effect
relationship, but it is worth looking at. I also don't believe that
there is more violent crime in the USA because of guns. But that is also
debatable).

You don't specify how you help the poor to become non-poor. Chances are
it would involve some kind of subsidy, like education or training. There
is only so much you can do with tax incentives (to the poor anyway).
(even lending money to the poor to go to university is a subsidy, since
the money could be lent in a less riskey way)

What I am saying about social subsidies, is that a certain amount might be 
cheaper, than an equivalent amount of spending on something else.
Example: *suppose* for a moment that $X on police protection ruduces 
crime by Y. Now *if* spending $X on a social progruduces crim
by a larger amount. 

Now this may be false: it might be better to spend it on policing, and
spend nothing on social subsidies. it would certainly be difficult to 
measure the effectiveness accurately. I am not advocating social programs
as a blanket solution, I am suggesting that they might have some 
rational merit (a certain amount might be cheaper), and that this 
should not be overlooked, just because some people have a moral
view that says "let the bums rot". Paying a certain amount for police
service and paying a certain amount for social services may be
more effective at reducing crime that paying all for police services
and 0 for social services.

As for proof: I can't think of any studies, but perhaps the fact
that other G7 countries spend a little ore on social programs, and
have less crime than the USA is some evidence. At least it's
evidence to not write off social programs 100%, and maybe
some more study should be done in this area. 

>
>They will sell crack to your innocent middle-class teenagers as long
>as drugs are illegal and highly profitable.  The market for crack is
>a rational response to the War On Drugs (WOD).  The WOD is a government
>price support system fundamental to the kinder gentler War On Poverty.
>It is intended to break the cycle of poverty by encouraging development
>of an entrepreneurial spirit.  :^{)


I agree with you here as well. (I believe in the free market, and also
with Buckley's ideas on legalizing drugs that you are advocating here).


>
>	 George Tucker        tucker@shiva.hac.com
>	"Innocence is irrelevant."
>		Select two:	The Borg
>				US Judicial System


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  
 Electrical Engineering                 |   .sig file without a cause
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca              VE7JPM |  
________________________________________|_________________________________