From: mjones@bk-kgnaix11.aix.kingston.ibm.com (Mike Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: NO! Re: flat taxes - yes!!!
Keywords: flat tax
Date: 14 Nov 92 16:46:18 GMT
Reply-To: mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com
Organization: IBM, Kingston NY


In article <V_C=LA+@engin.umich.edu>, jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) writes:
> In article <1992Nov11.103204.3702@ee.ubc.ca>, jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
> |> In article <markts.721352037@mcl> markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark.) writes:
> |> > flat taxes for everyone. people and corporations.
> |> > the 13% idea from jerry brown was the only
> |> > good idea out of the democratic primaries.
> |> > you think this lets the rich off the hook?
> |> > check out how much the really rich actually
> |> > pay in taxes now.
> |> > flat taxes will benefit the middle class.
> |> shouldn't people who use a service, pay for it?
> Yes.

This is so obvious that it should immediately make one skeptical. Here, the
unstated assumption is that of government as business, and taxes as fees.
This is far from a universally held or provably correct opinion.

> |> 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.
> I disagree.  Ask yourself where most crime occurs.  It's not in
> wealthy suburbs, its in poor neighborhoods.

For violent crime, yes. Property crimes are more spread. Remember Willie
Sutton, the bank robber? When asked why he robbed banks, his reply was,
"That's where the money is." So-called "white-collar" crimes are spread even
more widely still, and organized crime (above the level of street drug
sellers) operates mostly in wealthy neighborhoods. One might further observe
that violent crimes are often the least costly to solve, usually reqiring no
judicial intervention until the trial; search warrants, wiretaps, boats and
helicopters are seldom involved in your average mugging or domestic violence
complaint. There's also the point that, to some extent, police act as
insurance. We count on them for deterrent effect as well as for justice
after the fact. In this sense, of course people who are more wealthy should
pay more for police protection, because they have more to lose.

> |> 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)
> Where do most fires occur?  Most likely in older buildings.  Who
> tends to live in older buildings, the poor.

Yes, but. That's only one of the two criteria to determine indemnity. You
may have high insurance rates because your house is a firetrap (even though
it is cheap), or because it would be very expensive to replace (even though
it might be very safe). By the way, who *owns* those older buildings the
poor live in? It's a safe bet they don't. I'd wager that in many (if not
most) buildings, the value of the building swamps the value of the contents.
The poorer the tenants, the more likely this is to be true. Oh, yes...the
poor are not really very likely to have fire insurance, anyway.

   Mike Jones  |  AIX/ESA Development  |  mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com

They [preachers] dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of
daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the
duperies on which they live.
	- Thomas Jefferson