Why do my colleague and I pay as much in taxes?

[Machjo]

"They can afford to live there because urbanites and country folk are subsidizing them whether they're aware of it or not. City dwellers can walk to work or, at worst, cycle to work. Townsfolk often work at the farm right behind their house or can likewise walk or cycle to work seeing that the town is so small everything is nearby. Suburbanites are generally those who are most dependent on roads and are the ones who contribute the most to traffic and the need for further transportation infrastructure spending, yet on an income tax basis pay no more than their urban and rural counterparts of equal income for road construction. So of course suburban living is affordable for them; it's subsidized by those who don't live there!"

People don't move to the burbs cause they like driving. I think most people would like to walk to work so lets put the whole country in cities. Then what?

Then we don't need to waste our money maintaining suburban streets anymore, unless farmers decide to move closer to the city and take over the former suburbs in which case we needn't waste so much money on rural streets anymore.

[Bonam]

Enough to ensure that all funding for road construction come exclusively from the gas tax and not income tax?

I don't know, quite possible though, feel free to look up the numbers. Unfortunately though, just like every other tax, it gets lumped in with general revenue and the majority of it goes to fund healthcare.

[Machjo]

I don't know, quite possible though, feel free to look up the numbers. Unfortunately though, just like every other tax, it gets lumped in with general revenue and the majority of it goes to fund healthcare.

And that's perhaps the main problem. Gas taxes (or any other resource-based tax for that matter) should not be lumped together with income tax. Instead, gas taxes for example should be used only for those resources that they logically relate to, such as road and airport construction, for example. No gas tax should be used for healthcare funding unless it could be shown to corelate on some level. Asthma treatment, or other respiratory ailments related to emissions caused by gas consumption, perhaps, but certainly not hearlthcare in general.

The same should apply to cigarette taxes. They should be used strictly for services related to smoking, such as addiction therapy, lung cancer treatment, etc. Same with alcohol taxes, etc.

Income taxes should not be used for the things mentioned above, but should be used only for those services that cannot be logically linked to any kind of resource tax. Such a tax system would make the real cost of various government services more accurately reflected in the costs of goods and services in the economy, and this woudl naturally cause people to react accordingly in their spending habits so as to encourage more efficient spending.

[Bonam]

I have no problem with that in principle. In practice though, the VAST majority of government spending is healthcare and education. Income tax, sales tax, gas taxes, property tax, corporate tax, capital gains taxes, etc, all go into a big pool that pays for these things. If you wanted to pay for the big expenses like health and education purely out of income tax, I think income tax would go way up (or else health/education spending would go way down).

But this is all part of the downside of living in a heavily socialized system. You pay a ton of taxes at every step, income, sales, property, etc, and someone else gets to decide what it's all spent on, and you may or may not need those services/facilities yourself even though you are paying for them. That's just the nature of the beast.

As long as you have socialized government services, someone will feel like they are paying in more than they are getting from it.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Bonam

[Pliny]

If truckers must pay more tax, you're right that the cost of their goods will go up proportionately to the distance they must travel. However, your income taxes would go down too. Overall, they'd balance out.

Dream on! Dream on! Dream on!

More specifically however, it could vary from person to person. You'd find locally produced goods go up in price, but only by a little, with your drop in income taxes more than compensating for it. On the other hand, the price of products from farther afield would go up much more than the drop in your income taxes. So if you play your cards right and buy more locally or at least regionally, you could get out on top. If on the other hand you have a flair for the exotic, then you'll pay the price, as you ought to. If you contribute more to the damage done to roads, then you pay more too. fair is fair.

Payment by taxation is supposedly for the benefit of the common good and has no correlation to usage/consumption by individuals. It is not intended to be "fair". It is intended to alleviate individual financial obligations in a collective pool. It is expected that some will not use the service but those that do will not be individually responsible for the financial burden.

Also, I think any kind of resource tax is something both the right and the left could get behind, and here's why. If people make an effort to drive less, or buy more locally, then naturally there will be less need for road construction and maintenance, but that will go hand in hand with less revenue, obviously. On the other hand, if people want to drive more, or buy from farther afield, government revenue naturually increases and along with its spending on road construction. In that sense, it becomes a kind of natural system giving the consumer a choice. If he he uses more government resources like roads, etc., then such a tax will naturally hit him harder and so increase the revenue necessary. If he drives less the two go down naturally. So essentially, people have more of a say in how much government they want. Use more government services, and your taxes go up along with the services. Use fewer services, and the opposite. It woudl become like a form of natural shift between big government and small government according to social behaviours and needs.

I think you want government to operate more like a business and charge for individual usage and consumption.

It originally took over the construction of roads for the benefit of the common good not for the benefit of any individual. You are asking the government to personalize it's services and charge each individual accordingly. It is simply a reversion to what was once called a private business enterprise with the distinction of holding a monopoly. Would it be fair to call that a very right wing concept?

[Pliny]

As long as you have socialized government services, someone will feel like they are paying in more than they are getting from it.

That is it's design. It is for the benefit of the collective good and not intended for the benefit of any specific individual. The fact you pay and someone else receives services, which, I might add, may prove not to be beneficial, is not the concern of a social program. The concern is the perception that the common good is served and it is precisely that perception that brings about the upset this thread manifests.

It seems making things equal for society makes things unequal for individuals.

[Machjo]

Payment by taxation is supposedly for the benefit of the common good and has no correlation to usage/consumption by individuals.

What about when individual usage or consumption itself correlates to the common good, such as gas contributing to asthma and other ailments as well as pushing up the need for more roads?

It is not intended to be "fair".

The antonym of fair is unfair. So by definition if it's not fair, it's unfair, and it's supposed to be fair I'd think.

It is intended to alleviate individual financial obligations in a collective pool.

Sure, for essential services. Barely unused quiet suburban dead-end roads are a luxury, not a necessity, so it's only natural that their users should pay more. it's not the same as essential services such as common roads

It is expected that some will not use the service but those that do will not be individually responsible for the financial burden.

That's fair enough for things beyond their control, such as birth defects or just plain bad luck, but not for self-inflicted injuries such as a chain smoker suffering from cancer. I have no issue with offering him free health care, but then make sure he's paid his dues through cigarette taxes.

I think you want government to operate more like a business and charge for individual usage and consumption.

Not at all. Government is not a business and has a totally different purpose for its existence. That doesn't change the fact though that a tax system with incentives to promote more personal responsibility would not be such a bad thing. Universal access would still apply, but those who choose to harm themselves or to make themselves more dependent should pay more, though this should not apply to those who need more help through no fault of their own.

It originally took over the construction of roads for the benefit of the common good not for the benefit of any individual.

Agreed. And how would the proposal of a resource tax limit one's access to the roads? he'd still be free to use them free of charge. But he'd be discouraged from doing so through a gas tax so as ot ensure they're used for essentials not joy rides.

You are asking the government to personalize it's services and charge each individual accordingly.

Not exactly. All would have equal access to the roads and all would be equally subject to the rrules of a resource tax.

It is simply a reversion to what was once called a private business enterprise with the distinction of holding a monopoly. Would it be fair to call that a very right wing concept?

How is it a very right wing concept? It would help redivert money that is currently going towards personal ireesponsibility to actually helping those who need help through no fault of their own. Rediverting funds to the basic necessities of the most destitute would be more of a left-wing concept, no?

[Machjo]

That is it's design. It is for the benefit of the collective good and not intended for the benefit of any specific individual. The fact you pay and someone else receives services, which, I might add, may prove not to be beneficial, is not the concern of a social program. The concern is the perception that the common good is served and it is precisely that perception that brings about the upset this thread manifests.

It seems making things equal for society makes things unequal for individuals.

Again, I have nothing against my money helping the poor, destitute, or less fortunate. But that's a far cry from helping the chain smoker with terminal cancer, the heavy drinker with liver damage, or to pay to build more highways to alleviate traffic caused by too many joy riders or people who choose to live farther from work when they could just as easily move closer to work, etc.

We need to make a distinction between need and luxury.

[Wilber]

Then we don't need to waste our money maintaining suburban streets anymore, unless farmers decide to move closer to the city and take over the former suburbs in which case we needn't waste so much money on rural streets anymore.

Say what?

[Pliny]

Again, I have nothing against my money helping the poor, destitute, or less fortunate. But that's a far cry from helping the chain smoker with terminal cancer, the heavy drinker with liver damage, or to pay to build more highways to alleviate traffic caused by too many joy riders or people who choose to live farther from work when they could just as easily move closer to work, etc.

We need to make a distinction between need and luxury.

Many chain smokers and heavy drinkers are the poor, destitute or less fortunate. Would you not help them with their lung cancer and liver damage? A socialist universal health care system eliminates the necessity, or at least is supposed to eliminate the necessity, to make the distinction between need and luxury. It is assumed all are equal and will be treated equally.

We know that it doesn't work because the needy will inevitably overburden the system and luxury always has the option of seeking services elsewhere. We could eliminate luxury or tax it more heavily (which we do) but that would only increase the need because now the marginally rich must be included in the "needy" group because they may not be able to afford the luxury of purchasing their health care needs.

Living farther and closer to work is a variable. One chooses to live where one can afford not on how far he lives from his work.

[Pliny]

What about when individual usage or consumption itself correlates to the common good, such as gas contributing to asthma and other ailments as well as pushing up the need for more roads?

Socialism still does not serve the asthmatic or the individual road user. It serves the common good - or supposedly it does.

The antonym of fair is unfair. So by definition if it's not fair, it's unfair, and it's supposed to be fair I'd think.

Fair has, I think, at least by the socialist, been confused with equal. Only if all are equal would things be fair.

Sure, for essential services. Barely unused quiet suburban dead-end roads are a luxury, not a necessity, so it's only natural that their users should pay more. it's not the same as essential services such as common roads

Everyone must get equal consideration under the collective. Unused, dead-end roads are a result of the maintenance of equality among taxpayers and thus considered for the common good. All having equal access to roads. I believe you prefer the private system of everyone paying for their own, plus the cost of any externalities, if they want something?

Not exactly. All would have equal access to the roads and all would be equally subject to the rrules of a resource tax.

So the marginally rich will no longer be able to afford joy rides only the really rich?

All you are doing with this gas tax is widening the gap between the rich and the poor.

How is it a very right wing concept? It would help redivert money that is currently going towards personal ireesponsibility to actually helping those who need help through no fault of their own. Rediverting funds to the basic necessities of the most destitute would be more of a left-wing concept, no?

Socialism, of the left or right variety, is about control of the economy. The right wing concept is about the State determining the use of production for the common good and the left thinks the worker is somehow determining the distribution of wealth.

[Machjo]

Many chain smokers and heavy drinkers are the poor, destitute or less fortunate. Would you not help them with their lung cancer and liver damage? A socialist universal health care system eliminates the necessity, or at least is supposed to eliminate the necessity, to make the distinction between need and luxury. It is assumed all are equal and will be treated equally.

i could see two solutions to this. one is to simply privatize health care and leave it to the private sector. Or alternatively, if we prefer a more socialistic system, then at least make sure all make an effort. So for the poor and destitute smoker or drinker, help him, provide free health care, but raise taxes on his cigarettes and alcohol. I don't mind helping you as long as you help yoursself too. So the poor man, if he chooses to smoke, obviously can afford to pay more for his health care.

Living farther and closer to work is a variable. One chooses to live where one can afford not on how far he lives from his work.

But when we subiside roads, it gives a false impression of the real costs. Two solutions I can see to thai are either to privatise roads altogether or at least make sure that taxes are more related to road use.

[Machjo]

Everyone must get equal consideration under the collective. Unused, dead-end roads are a result of the maintenance of equality among taxpayers and thus considered for the common good. All having equal access to roads. I believe you prefer the private system of everyone paying for their own, plus the cost of any externalities, if they want something?

I'm not necessarily in favour of privatizing all roads, unless of course you could suggest a way that could work. However, I would support ensuring that, as long as roads are publicly funded, that they be built efficiently to maximize their use, which would naturally mean not building so many cul-de-sacs, etc.

So the marginally rich will no longer be able to afford joy rides only the really rich?

All you are doing with this gas tax is widening the gap between the rich and the poor.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Providing public education for all, or public transportation to ensure people can get to work are reasonable subsidies perhaps, but not subsidizing a person's joy rides any more than subsidizing candy in the candy shop. Again, it's a matter of making a distinction between necessity vs luxury. Luxury ought to be left to the private sector, with government dealing only with need. So those who want to use public roads without considering their extensive use of it ought to pay more for it naturally, and so the rich would naturally pay more... if they make more use of the roads of course.

[Bonam]

There are very few roads that are used exclusively for joy rides.

[Wilber]

ame='Pliny' date='25 February 2010 - 11:50 AM' timestamp='1267114947' post='513324']

Everyone must get equal consideration under the collective. Unused, dead-end roads are a result of the maintenance of equality among taxpayers and thus considered for the common good. All having equal access to roads. I believe you prefer the private system of everyone paying for their own, plus the cost of any externalities, if they want something?

You have a thing about roads. Like your ideal would be a city with farms grouped around it to feed the city's needs and the rest of the country a great unoccupied wilderness. Sounds a lot like the Middle Ages to me. What a fun time they were.

[Pliny]

i could see two solutions to this. one is to simply privatize health care and leave it to the private sector. Or alternatively, if we prefer a more socialistic system, then at least make sure all make an effort. So for the poor and destitute smoker or drinker, help him, provide free health care, but raise taxes on his cigarettes and alcohol. I don't mind helping you as long as you help yoursself too. So the poor man, if he chooses to smoke, obviously can afford to pay more for his health care.

Price cigarettes and alcohol out of the range of the poor and the result is that the poor either beg or steal. It isn't "obvious" they can pay more for health care. They will beg for cigarettes and smoke butts they find on the street beg for money and buy a case of beer.

When you talk about using taxes as a means of social engineering you are talking about price controls. All you do is raise the prices and the marginal individual who could afford cigarettes and alcohol will now not be able to buy them and they resort to begging or stealing. Now you have more people on the streets and you are widening the gap between rich and poor.

I agree people have to be attempting to help themselves. Government welfare doesn't tolerate that. If a person makes some money while receiving welfare that money is deducted from his welfare, it doesn't supplement it. Of course, people will supplement their welfare checks with under the table work.

But when we subiside roads, it gives a false impression of the real costs. Two solutions I can see to thai are either to privatise roads altogether or at least make sure that taxes are more related to road use.

They are possible solutions but I can't really make a convincing argument for private road construction. It is a Libertarian idea and there is a book about it but I haven't read it. I do know that currently government does not serve the public efficiently in the matter. Traffic congestion, empty highways and roads to nowhere, traffic deaths and pollution seem the norm.

The name of the book is "The Privatization of Roads" by Walter Block.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Pliny

[Pliny]

You have a thing about roads. Like your ideal would be a city with farms grouped around it to feed the city's needs and the rest of the country a great unoccupied wilderness. Sounds a lot like the Middle Ages to me. What a fun time they were.

I don't have an ideal. I know it could be better.

You remember the middle ages? Wasn't that the feudal times? It certainly wasn't a time of

private roads unless you were the King.

[Wilber]

But when we subiside roads, it gives a false impression of the real costs. Two solutions I can see to thai are either to privatise roads altogether or at least make sure that taxes are more related to road use.

Same goes for transit. What makes you think they aren't related to road use. Because you personally don't use a road doesn't mean you don't need it. What is the reason for your city to exist if people, goods and services can't get in or out of it.

[Machjo]

Same goes for transit. What makes you think they aren't related to road use. Because you personally don't use a road doesn't mean you don't need it. What is the reason for your city to exist if people, goods and services can't get in or out of it.

I do use the roads on occasion, and certainly I'd be paying the gas tax, either directly or indirectly, like anyone else. The only difference is that those who use the roads much more than I do would pay more, and those who use roads less than I do would pay less.

[Wilber]

I do use the roads on occasion, and certainly I'd be paying the gas tax, either directly or indirectly, like anyone else. The only difference is that those who use the roads much more than I do would pay more, and those who use roads less than I do would pay less.

You really don't get it, your need for roads has little to do with how much you use them personally.

[Machjo]

You really don't get it, your need for roads has little to do with how much you use them personally.

Then we need to distinguish between need for roads and need for additional roads. for example, imagine John dirves an hour to work every day, and Jack drives for three hours once a years to go to another city. On the one hand, John uses less roadway than Jak, but Jack uses less mileage per year than John. As a result, Jack is not likely to contribute to the need for another parallel highway to get to that city since plenty of people can use that same road if they all use it so infrequently. As for John, he would contribute to the need for another parallel road to alleviate the daily traffic he's contributing to. With a gas tax (or perhaps if there was a way to privatize the roads), then it's more likely that John would choose to reduce his road use.

Same applies to bananas and apples. If John eats apples all the time and John eats bananas all the time, who's contributing the msot to the need for an additional airport runway for the banana flights? Certainly a gas tax would be added as an overhead cost to the bananas. While food generally is an essential item, bananas specifically are not.

Again, government should cater to social necessities, not luxuries.

[Machjo]

Same goes for transit. What makes you think they aren't related to road use. Because you personally don't use a road doesn't mean you don't need it. What is the reason for your city to exist if people, goods and services can't get in or out of it.

Of course I don't support subsidizing transit, and even municipal public transit buses should pay gas taxes like all others or alternatively pay the fees for private roads. Overall, the cost of bus fare would go up, but since the cost of driving would go up even more, more people would take the bus anyway. And the smart ones would find themselves with more take home pay in the end if they use our public resources more responsibly.

[Machjo]

You have a thing about roads. Like your ideal would be a city with farms grouped around it to feed the city's needs and the rest of the country a great unoccupied wilderness. Sounds a lot like the Middle Ages to me. What a fun time they were.

I'm taking roads as an example here. Now as for the Middle Ages, what have they got to do with it? Just because we have lots of land it doesn't mean wasting our resources just to use it up ought to be the ultimate goal.

[Machjo]

There are very few roads that are used exclusively for joy rides.

Granted. However, when people just decide to gofor a drive for something to do they're contributing to traffic, pollution, asthma, etc. etc. etc. while others are using the same roads with actual purposes in mind. You make roads more user-pay and people would think more about using them.

[Bonam]

Granted. However, when people just decide to gofor a drive for something to do they're contributing to traffic, pollution, asthma, etc. etc. etc. while others are using the same roads with actual purposes in mind. You make roads more user-pay and people would think more about using them.

How many people go on joy rides on roads where traffic and pollution is a factor? When people go on "joy rides" they go on roads that are empty so they can have fun rather than sitting in gridlock. In any case, the number of joyriders must be negligibly small compared to the number of people making their commutes.