Re: [ox-en] Free (as in beer) public transport
- From: Russell McOrmond <russell flora.ca>
- Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 19:46:52 -0500 (EST)
(Semi-off-topic conversation on tax bases to pay for public services)
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Graham Seaman wrote:
So if you find that free public transport achieved this better (as I
suspect it would) you'd go with the free public transport?
Yes, if the public policy for free public transport was achieving this.
At the moment here in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, private automobile users
receive considerably more subsidization than users of public transport do.
I am one of those few people in North America who are car-free/care-free
and don't even have a drivers license.
But normally when I see 'taxpayers' counterposed to 'users' it just
means 'stop the dirty bums getting a free ride from us respectable folk'.
Just because you normally see it that way, doesn't mean it is the only
way to see it. I pay taxes, and don't want to be seeing my taxes being
handed over to rich folks doing things I believe are wrong.
The rhetoric you hear of "there is only one taxpayer" is simply false.
Different tax bases should fund different government services.
b) 'shift of taxes off of the general income and property taxpayer and
onto the consumer.'
I know this one; we had it from Thatcher (and I thought Americans got
it from Reagan? is it new in Canada?).
I disagree that what I said has anything to do with the Thatcher, Reagan
and now Bush Jr. "Trickle down economic" ideologies. They want/wanted to
create handouts to the already-rich under the theory that this excess
would stimulate the economy. Like believing that gravity works upward
(i.e. away from the centers of mass), this theory had no merit IMNSHO.
In fact, I've sat in conversations with Industry Canada economists
trying to encourage them to think about 'trickle up economics' where
stimulating free market activity at the citizen level will lead to more
stable economies than handouts to the big-players. I was trying to
convince them that supporting the development of Free/Libre Software (and
other knowledge) would be better for the Canadian economy than their
current large handouts to Intellectual Property speculators.
It is the same difference as grassroots politics vs astro-turf or
dictatorial politics.
It's code for 'stop the rich from having to pay their way, and shift the
costs on to the poor'.
I believe you are confusing my policy suggestions with the status quo.
Currently energy and transportation costs paid for primarily by the middle
class (and often out of government revenue redirected away from social
programs) -- and most often paid *TO* the richest in our society. Nobody
will convince me that Oil families aren't extremely rich and powerful
worldwide, or that the handouts to these folks didn't really come out of
social housing or food security programs.
At least in England this argument has been a big part of what has
increasingly polarized society into rich and poor over the last 20
years, as taxes taken from income (which can be progressive) are shifted
onto consumer goods (where taxes are the same for everyone and so
proportionately higher for the poor).
Economy-related services (i.e. social welfare) makes sense to pay for in
economy related taxes (i.e. income/profit taxes). Welfare and other forms
of economic social insurance benefit everyone in the economy, not just
those receiving it. No matter whether it is for progressive public policy
reasons, or selfishness in relation to personal safety concerns, there are
many reasons to justify social safety nets.
Corporate welfare (tax breaks or straight handouts, both of which are
fairly popular these days) is an entirely different thing.. but I won't go
there ;-)
Transportation related services (Roads, emergency vehicles, public
transit) should be paid for in transportation related taxes (fuel taxes,
licensing, etc).
... And so on for different types of government services and tax bases.
We can legitimately debate about whether social housing should be paid for
out of income or property taxes, but I will simply not agree that
transportation or energy should be paid for out of eithor income or
property taxes.
Note: Careful as the word 'progressive' has multiple meanings just like
the word 'free'. In the case of income tax I interpret it to mean
"continuing steadily by increments" and not "progress toward better
conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods"
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=progressive
---
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
Any 'hardware assist' for communications, whether it be eye-glasses,
VCR's, or personal computers, must be under the control of the citizen
and not a third party. -- http://www.flora.ca/russell/
_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/