From: anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker)
Newsgroups: uk.misc,uk.politics
Subject: Re: Transport subsidies - Was: Car Parking
Date: 12 Jan 93 17:03:24 GMT
Reply-To: anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker)
Followup-To: uk.politics
Organization: Maths Dept., Nott'm Univ., UK.

[Please note "Followup-To:".]

In article <930111.195103.2t6.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>
mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>What sort of "socially desirable" tax benefit did you have in mind?

	For example, unemployment benefit.  I would guess that some 70-80%
of the population would feel that unemployment benefits are desirable.
But they constitute a large fraction of the tax take:  if 15% of the
"working" population is unemployed, then the rest of us would have to
contribute 15% of our pay to keep them in the style to which we are
accustomed, or say 7.5% to keep them in the style to which they are
forced to become accustomed.  For someone on, say, #20K, that's #1500pa.
But many of those on large incomes are self-employed or self-confident or
in sufficiently secure jobs to feel that they themselves are never likely
to benefit;  many of the people who think that the unemployed are idle
layabouts who should get on their bikes are those with the largest tax
bills;  many old people are taxpayers who are unlikely to benefit from
unemployment benefit.  If a significant fraction of these people behave
selfishly, then the rest of us may find that half of our tax has to go on
unemployment benefit, another half on the NHS, another half on education,
at which stage the figures stop adding up.  If you don't believe that people
behave selfishly, you haven't been following UK and US politics for the last
decade and more.

>>         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?

	Having no nuclear deterrent is cheap but [allegedly] unsafe.  Having
enough nuclear submarines to maintain a round-the-clock patrol is expensive
but [allegedly] safe.  Having only enough nuclear submarines to patrol on
alternate months is moderately expensive and clearly as unsafe as having
none.  See also my reply to FoFP.

>
>>                                                       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.

	A larger police force is cheaper.

>So that my company will be able to recruit capable employees, and hence
>prosper.

	Poaching from the company next door is cheaper.

>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.

	No [unless we change the voting system];  but they *will* be given
full powers to determine government economic policy.  Do you really want
J Random Millionaire to have more influence, by virtue merely of his wealth,
than dozens of ordinary taxpayers, or than all the poverty-stricken in the
community put together?

>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?

	I guessed elsewhere that perhaps 5% of the population account for
50% of the tax take;  your guess may be different, but it is clear that a
small fraction of the population could exert disproportionate leverage.
That fraction is unlikely to be naturally sympathetic to Labour.

>Most people don't have the time, inclination or mental ability to
>investigate.

	Perhaps you should get together with FoFP, and come to some
agreement as to whether or not we can (or should) trust the people.

>If Mr Sainsbury wants to spend his money on a cancer clinic instead of
>Trident and motorways, I for one am all for it.

	OK, but year one it's the "J Sainsbury Cancer Clinic" and we're
all suitably grateful [forgetting that it was gov't policy anyway, and
JS simply said "that's *my* money being used for that"].  Year two, it's
the "J Sainsbury Leisure Centre", as long as you build it next to the
JS supermarket.  Year three, "I'll give you the money to build a library,
provided that I get planning permission to build a new supermarket".  Is
that the way you want to go?

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

	Rich people will be able to hypothecate enough resources to buy
publicity and favours that they would normally have to buy for themselves
[ie, out of income, not out of tax].

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