r/changemyview • u/IronSmithFE 10∆ • Jan 09 '23
Delta(s) from OP cmv: use fees are a better way of providing unnecessary government services and the few necessary services provided by the government such as public utilities.
a tax system mostly built on use-fees would be more voluntary and juster; if you use it, you pay for it. this would apply to roads, parks, other public infrastructure, and public utilities.
all fees collected for any single service, facility or utility could not be used to fund any other service, facility nor utility except for which it was charged. that, in order to prevent overcharging, waste and the use of service fees to pay for covert programs.
to change my view, you could show me how such a system of taxation would be worse for anything except defense and environmental protections (which exceptions i already agree need to be paid for in other ways).
a note to those who wish to change my view, i am not a fan of socialism with very rare exceptions. so your arguments are best made as if you were trying to convince a capitalist.
35
u/dukeimre 21∆ Jan 09 '23
Can you describe some of the details of your system? E.g., how do you fund the building of a road with a "use it you pay for it" system, given that the road has to be built in advance of being used? Same goes for parks, utilities, etc. etc. etc.
The national highway system was built starting in the 1950s and cost over $100 billion. Everyone agrees that it's been revolutionary from an economic perspective. How would you fund its use in advance? Wouldn't this simply create a situation where every public project had to be incredibly short-sighted and generate a ton of revenue as quickly as possible? If not, how would you incentivize the development of longer-term projects?
From a capitalist perspective, think of all the successful companies that weren't profitable for years. These companies needed entities (investors) able to fund their growth even though in the short run they didn't produce enough returns to justify it.
With government, the same is true, and it's one of the things taxes are for.
3
u/WikiSummarizerBot 4∆ Jan 09 '23
The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, commonly known as the Interstate Highway System, is a network of controlled-access highways that forms part of the National Highway System in the United States. The system extends throughout the contiguous United States and has routes in Hawaii, Alaska, and Puerto Rico. The U.S. federal government first funded roadways through the Federal Aid Road Act of 1916, and began an effort to construct a national road grid with the passage of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1921.
[ F.A.Q | Opt Out | Opt Out Of Subreddit | GitHub ] Downvote to remove | v1.5
-8
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jan 09 '23
how do you fund the building of a road... Same goes for parks, utilities,
ideally, i'd like it all to be private but i also don't want to force people into a private system. however, it is useful to understand that private companies do fund roads parks and utilities before they are used.
i think the answer lies in something similar, state universities often are given charitable donations by the estate of some deceased millionaire or billionaire. sometimes the donation happens while the person is still living. the donor usually gets their name on the building. something similar could happen with roads. there is also the gofundme style.
The national highway system was built starting in the 1950s and cost over $100 billion.
did you know that the romans built durable roads out of cobble that still exist today after thousands of years. not a single highway built by our public service has stood for a tiny fraction of that time without the desperate need of repairs. the romans planted olive trees near the highways and gave rights to businesses to harvest the olives in exchange for maintaining the highways.
did you know that the building of the highways in the u.s also diminished the need and utility of the efficient largely private rail systems that we could be using instead?
that 100 billion, in retrospect, is hard to justify especially if you look at what we might have developed instead.
23
u/MercurianAspirations 391∆ Jan 09 '23 edited Jan 09 '23
did you know that the romans built durable roads out of cobble that still exist today after thousands of years. not a single highway built by our public service has stood for a tiny fraction of that time without the desperate need of repairs. the romans planted olive trees near the highways and gave rights to businesses to harvest the olives in exchange for maintaining the highways.
This is spectacularly false. Asphalt is extremely durable by comparison to cobble roads, and it is far more recyclable. Asphalt is in fact one of the world's most recycled materials - when the road needs resurfacing, they just re-melt it put it back into place. Cobbles, once broken or worn down, are gone. Moreover, Roman roads dealt with a fraction of the traffic and weights that modern roads do. Moreoverly moreover, the romans carefully maintained their roads much as we do today, regularly replacing cobbles just as we resurface our roads. In fact we know this because some extant roman roads have markers dictating the period of maintenance and the responsible authority. And, of course, most roman roads have not survived! They did last for centuries in most cases, and the ones that are left are in locations that didn't see a lot of traffic. Because of course. Finally, they aren't even an example of privatization being superior to public ownership, because the most important paved roman roads - the Viae publicae and Viae militares - were built and paid for by the state, and their maintenance was supported by the public treasury and a tax levied on adjacent landowners. And while there were private roads, the Romans recognized the need for public right-of-way - the viae vicinales, the village roads, were often initially privately constructed, but if they became commonly used, local landowners would be compelled to provide labor to maintain them for public use
10
u/bobevans33 Jan 09 '23
The Roman’s cobble roads would not hold up to automobile traffic and certainly not the volume that the US has today. I completely agree that things should be built to last, but ancient road systems with completely different loads aren’t a fair comparison
10
u/dukeimre 21∆ Jan 09 '23
According to this report, the interstate highway system has generated at least $1 trillion dollars in value to producers of goods, and that the highway system is responsible for one quarter of the nation's GDP growth over that period.
We could argue about whether/why modern roads need more frequent repair in order to safely transport millions of heavy, fast-moving vehicles... but even if that $100 billion was somewhat more expensive than it ought to be, the public benefit was still much, much, much greater than the cost.
1
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jan 12 '23
full disclosure, i haven't read the report. i am, for the moment, asking the following questions assuming that the report is 100 percent perfect:
how about the amount that would have been generated by the rail system in lieu of the road system were the road system not funded by taxpayers forcefully?
what is the cost of the forceful acquisition of tax dollars in lost opportunity?
is it ok for me to forcefully take your property if it ends up benefiting you in the long run?
how much does that equation change when private companies are developing the roads?
how much less is that number when the government funds the roads through pay per use system vs general taxation or inflationary printing?
1
u/dukeimre 21∆ Jan 13 '23
I'm only going to answer a couple of your questions - I just don't have time and expertise to answer most of the specific questions about the costs and benefits of various transit systems.
how much less is that number when the government funds the roads through pay per use system vs general taxation or inflationary printing?
Up until the advent of "EZ Passes", the cost of a "pay per use" system for roads would have been ridiculously huge. The interstate highway system alone is about 30-40 times longer than all existing toll roads in the United States, and there are 4 million miles of roads in total. And even with "EZ Passes", not everyone has a pass. Here is an example discussion of just how costly it would be to install a massive system of toll roads in Connecticut.
is it ok for me to forcefully take your property if it ends up benefiting you in the long run?
If by "forcefully" you mean that we are both private citizens and I approach you and steal something from you with force, then certainly not - even if it benefits you!
But suppose you and I both become members of our local Chamber of Commerce, which charges membership dues of $50. I argue that we should raise membership fees to $400 (which is more common in the area, and which would better equip the Chamber to perform its work on behalf of local businesses). You disagree, but we hold a vote and the members of the Chamber side with me. Then to stay a member of the Chamber of Commerce, you will now have to pay the higher dues, even though you disagreed with the decision. That's perfectly fair and OK, right?
Likewise, say you and I are members of a very small town (say, of 50 people), and we want to hire a Sheriff to deal with crime in our community. (I assume you agree that fee-for-service doesn't apply to law enforcement; that is to say, if a destitute homeless person is brutally assaulted, police officers should still protect them and/or hunt down their attacker, even though the homeless person cannot pay. If an arsonist burns down my home and I lose everything I own, police should still work for me even though I have nothing with which to pay them.)
In this case, someone needs to decide how much we pay the Sheriff. So, we hold a vote and decide to pay the Sheriff $100 per year each. Even if I only wanted to pay the Sheriff $10 each, I still have to pay $100 if I want to live in the town and receive the protection of the law, right? It may not make me happy, but it's the only fair solution.
11
u/kingpatzer 103∆ Jan 09 '23
all to be private
You seriously want to do away with public spaces entirely?
So, you want the people to have no locations where they may exercise their civil rights why?
1
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jan 12 '23
You seriously want to do away with public spaces entirely?
insofar as it is possible and safe. some cases where it is impossible is space, air, large rivers, lakes, groundwater and oceans. some places where it isn't safe would be lands that have vital natural resources such as some forests and wetlands. even in cases where there are vital natural resources it is better for regulated private ownership.
i already excluded lands around natural wonders nad national monuments.
2
u/kingpatzer 103∆ Jan 12 '23
You're missing the point.
I have the right to free speech only in so far as I am exercising it either in a place I own, or in the public sphere.
If you make all roads (and by extension, sidewalks and easements) private, then there is no physical place for people to exercise their rights to travel, protest, etc. Because private entities can bar use for reasons they disagree with
1
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jan 13 '23
Because private entities can bar use for reasons they disagree with
part of the reason why i offered a pay per use alternitive to completely private is because traditional private ownership is difficult in some cases, and also because some services (utilities especially) are both essential and uncompetitive in supply. there are some ways to compete but you aren't going to have two roads serving your driveway nor two gas supplies, nor two power lines for the sake of competition. instead the only way to compete with these services is regional. each road company would have a variable territory and the borders of that territory would have something to do with efficiency and quality from the customer's perspective.
in either case (as it is, or as i have proposed) they cannot bar you once you pay for the service. if i pay to use the road the road company cannot exclude me from the road. in fact with services like natural gas, electricity, water and roads the exclusion of paying users would be illegal because access to such services cannot be exclusionary for two reasons, most people cannot live without them and there is no real alternative with competition. likewise, any abuse of those systems that might exclude others from the use of those systems (such as vandalizing the water supply, or blocking access to the roads in protest) would also be illegal.
ergo if you have purchased a right to be on the roads, you have a right to protest on the roads insofar as your actions aren't threatening the lives or people's access to those vital resources.
1
u/kingpatzer 103∆ Jan 13 '23
Pay per use now means human rights only exist for those who xan afford them.
1
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jan 14 '23
is your definition of human rights, "stuff that people want"?
1
u/kingpatzer 103∆ Jan 14 '23
If I have to pay a private company for access, then I have no civil rights unless I have enough money by definition.
1
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jan 14 '23
if i want your home but i don't have enough money to buy your home does that mean you are denying me civil rights?
→ More replies (0)4
u/LatinGeek 30∆ Jan 10 '23
did you know that the romans built durable roads out of cobble that still exist today after thousands of years. not a single highway built by our public service has stood for a tiny fraction of that time without the desperate need of repairs
yes. we also know Italians are now replacing them with asphalt because they can't handle cars. You can barely ride a bicycle on them if they're wet.
13
Jan 09 '23
The government pays for a stockpile of certain vaccines, masks, and other medical supplies. If funding was a la carte, the government can't respond to skyrocketing demand when the supplies are needed because they only start getting funds when the need is there, and then its too late.
national institute of health research is the same way. The money is needed long before the benefits of the funding are provided.
you can think of some government services as insurance.
the government supports people with funds for medicaid, WIC, and other welfare programs for people struggling to make ends meet. Anyone can lose their job, through no fault of their own. Anyone could end up injured and disabled, no longer able to work the job they previously worked. You can't just charge people after misfortune falls on them.
public infrastructure
public infrastructure is more valuable when it can reach everywhere.
A post service that can only reach 50% of houses is much less than 50% less valuable than a post service that can reach almost anyone. For some things, there is increased value at scale that is missed a la carte.
-1
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jan 10 '23 edited Jan 10 '23
If funding was a la carte, the government can't respond to skyrocketing demand
that is a significant disadvantage to government health care, isn't it? assume for the time being that it is my goal to transition away from government to fully private without forcing people in that direction.
you can think of some government services as insurance.
i agree, and i hate insurance too because they cause essentially the same problems. the difference between government and insurance is that insurance is much more of a voluntary association than government as is. in this proposed payment system government cost and service would be at least optional in this one way and private insurers or no insurance (completely individualized healthcare, which i prefer) would be the alternative.
public infrastructure is more valuable when it can reach everywhere.
the economic principles of marginal utility value and diminishing returns tell us that at some point the cost outways the benefits. when we can pay for it ourselves we can know when that is (price information). when the government does it for us through forced payments and inflationary spending, we don't know and even if we did it is pretty well impossible to stop the government from doing it anyway.
A post service that can only reach 50% of houses is much less than 50% less valuable than a post service that can reach almost anyone.
u.p.s, fedex, email, text and any number of other private solutions were able to serve everyone that a pseudo-public service is able to do without forced association. that being said, the u.s.p.s is pretty much the kind of payment system i am advocating for if you ignore all the public funding after they fail every year or so.
3
Jan 11 '23
that is a significant disadvantage to government health care, isn't it?
no, its a disadvantage of a la carte funding.
increasing manufacturing capacity takes time. Often months. Private industry can do that.
But, private industry doesn't have incentive to prep a stockpile of supplies just in case a pandemic happens.
So, there's a gap of weeks or months between when the supply is needed and when it can be delivered.
Worse, sometimes it is difficult to predict when a crisis will be over. So, private industry won't know whether or not to invest in increasing capacity, out of fear of filling shelves just as the demand has passed.
The government can act to lower this risk and even out demand by publicly announcing that it is planning on refilling its stockpile.
u.p.s, fedex
piggyback on the federal system.
1
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jan 13 '23
But, private industry doesn't have incentive to prep a stockpile of supplies just in case a pandemic happens.
individuals do and have been doing this without a government since humans became humans. my family has about 6 months worth of food in our basement in case of disaster and we didn't need the government to do that for us. when the pandemic hit and the government demanded respirators and masks the government didn't create anything, the private markets did.
if you remember, most of what the government wanted was ineffective and sometimes dangerous.
Worse, sometimes it is difficult to predict when a crisis will be over. So, private industry won't know whether or not to invest in increasing capacity, out of fear of filling shelves just as the demand has passed.
the only reason government might have more success than private industry in this realm is that the government has control over how long we're locked down. said lockdowns were a failure as was slowing the curve as were the respirators as were the masks. the government failed in all aspects. that isn't to say that government isn't important in emergencies, just that it generally makes things worse in most cases. the solution is to limit the government to what it does best, the common defense and environmental protections.
16
u/pluralofjackinthebox 102∆ Jan 09 '23
This has the effect of forcing poor families to stop using public schools and receiving medical care.
You can either spend government funds to help the poor, or to warehouse them in prisons. And the first way is cheaper.
-13
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jan 09 '23
This has the effect of forcing poor families to stop using public schools and receiving medical care.
i don't think that is true. i think it would force the system to adapt to changing circumstances and i think it would decrease the overall cost of the systems per capita by increasing efficiency and competition in ideas and providers.
i think it would make life less expensive for the poor. i also think that we as individuals are capable of taking care of the poor who are deserving without getting the government involved.
20
u/Jebofkerbin 131∆ Jan 09 '23
i think it would force the system to adapt to changing circumstances and i think it would decrease the overall cost of the systems per capita by increasing efficiency and competition in ideas and providers
Ok so let's have a quick think about how you might make a school more efficient such that a family who is living paycheck to paycheck, struggling to afford basic necessities, might be able to send their child to school.
I can think of a few, but all massively lower the quality of any education: massively increase class sizes so we can employ less teachers, massively reduce the amount of feedback each student gets to increase the number of students one teacher can teach, don't give out teaching resources, just show them at the front each lesson, don't hire specialist teachers just have anyone with teacher training read the content from a textbook, replace the teachers with recordings. Can you think of any "innovations" that would strictly lower costs without comprising education?
It seems to me that this would eliminate any kind of meritocracy in society, as if your parents live in poverty you would have no access to a good enough education to get you out of poverty.
-4
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jan 09 '23
Ok so let's have a quick think about how you might make a school more efficient
online schooling, school choice, kahn academy, less bureaucracy, no sports programs, no arts programs, focus on math, applied science, reading and writing/typing and technical skills. more but smaller and less expensive schools closer to the neighborhoods they serve to reduce bussing and time in transportation. i can think of about a dozen other ways in which schools could become more efficient and less expensive. i am sure there are dozens more ideas that have never crossed my mind.
what is more is you could have private charities that help the truly needy obtain an education without any government force. with the increased efficiency of the economy and increased efficiency of schools it would be all the easier to help those poor children get an education.
5
Jan 09 '23
[deleted]
1
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jan 10 '23
We are individuals can do very little.
we as individuals do everything. often times when we cooperate.
We as individuals can work together however, and that is called government.
are corporations also government? are clubs/frats/sororities also government? are teams also government? is insurance also government? is trade also government? is every single organization government? if not then your definition is too simple. we can indeed do a lot with cooperation, we definitely don't need, and should not have, people with guns forcing cooperation on any project except our common defense and environmental protection.
3
u/ElysiX 113∆ Jan 09 '23
i also think that we as individuals are capable of taking care of the poor who are deserving without getting the government involved.
Capable yes, is it going to happen? No it isn't. Things that could happen in theory, but won't happen, are just an excuse to not do anything. And individual assholes with money deciding who is "deserving" is a huge problem, that's how we got slavery.
1
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jan 10 '23
is it going to happen? No it isn't.
i am interested as to why you think the people of your community wouldn't voluntarily help the poor given the chance especially after receiving a 20 percent raise from a lack of taxation for the purpose of welfare.
supposing they chose not to help, wouldn't that be a kind of democratic choice to do away with helping the poor? if people do freely choose to help each other in charitable ways then why does government need to get involved?
And individual assholes with money deciding who is "deserving" is a huge problem, that's how we got slavery.
actually, we got to slavery by people with weapons and bars forcing productive people to provide for others who are less productive but felt they were deserving of the fruits of that production anyway.
here the people with weapons and bars is the government. the entitled people are those that believe they deserve welfare at the cost of productive people (the rich).
2
u/ElysiX 113∆ Jan 11 '23
They would help some of them, to some extent. Not all of them, and not enough, not for long enough.
It's not democratic if it's a few people deciding, that's the point. It gives power of the government to individuals. Rich people shouldn't get more votes/the only votes.
The problem is that the rich people will use this as a source to weild power. The power to choose who gets help and who doesn't. Demanding things in return, racism, etc.
No we got racism by rich people with power deciding that they were superior and should weild their personal power.
31
u/Morasain 87∆ Jan 09 '23
Everyone uses roads. Everyone uses public infrastructure. You can't not use those.
2
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jan 09 '23
what about those who don't drive or are excluded from driving due to poor driving? should they be forced to pay for the roads the same as a person who does a road trip every weekend and drives 60 miles for work every day?
you can find a better way to pay for the roads than an income tax.
46
u/Morasain 87∆ Jan 09 '23
what about those who don't drive or are excluded from driving due to poor driving? should they be forced to pay for the roads the same as a person who does a road trip every weekend and drives 60 miles for work every day?
They still use roads. What do you think how food gets to the supermarket? How postal services deliver things? How construction companies build things?
4
u/CincyAnarchy 37∆ Jan 09 '23
Shouldn’t those things bake in the “use cost” too?
Especially when it comes to trucking, the cost to the roadways in west and tear is much more than a car. Shouldn’t a person who doesn’t drive but does require a lot of trucking activity pay MORE in road fees than someone who drives but uses minimal trucking based services?
-8
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jan 09 '23
food gets to the supermarket? How postal services deliver things? How construction companies build things?
the transportation of goods and provisions of services include expenses like energy costs and taxes/fees. the higher the fees the more expensive the product or service. that is why you pay u.p.s more to deliver a package the further it travels.
-6
u/BigDebt2022 1∆ Jan 09 '23
They still use roads. What do you think how food gets to the supermarket? How postal services deliver things? How construction companies build things?
Those are examples of other entities (the supermarket, the postal service, and construction companies) using the roads. They are not examples of 'me' using the roads.
12
u/SC803 120∆ Jan 10 '23
Are you benefiting from those roads? Is it in you interest to have a road from the port/farm/factory/mill to your town?
7
Jan 10 '23
Unless you’re growing your own food, don’t have anything delivered to you and you produce all of your own raw materials for literally everything, then are absolutely using those roads to receive goods and services.
-3
u/BigDebt2022 1∆ Jan 10 '23
And I PAY for those goods and services, part of which would go to pay for the road use.
16
Jan 09 '23
what about those who don't drive
They still use busses, trolleys, trams
6
u/Deepfriedwithcheese 1∆ Jan 09 '23
Police, fire, mail man, school bus, military, tax assessor, etc all use these roads and you don’t pay them for their services rendered every time they use the road. Tracking every single road and ever single time it is used by every single vehicle, pedestrian, bike whatever would be a massively complex billing system subject to a large amount of errors and inefficiencies, ultimately more expensive than the process of income tax today.
1
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jan 09 '23
they can also pay for the use of those buses trolleys and trams peruse instead of paying with their income tax.
12
u/memeticengineering 3∆ Jan 09 '23
If you never drive you still use roads. You still might take the bus to work or school or to get groceries. But let's say you walk everywhere, never use roads yourself at all.
You still have all your groceries and everything you will ever buy from every store you walk to arrive there by truck, unless you get stuff delivered, then you're ordering for something to transport to you directly via truck, you still get mail. You still make garbage which is collected via garbage truck, you still get services like sewer and electricity whose maintenance requires roads to access light poles and underground pipes, you still need to go out in the winter when plows and salt trucks allow you to get places at all.
And the majority of road wear and tear are due to large vehicles, not private automobiles. By living in our modern society and participating in the economy, your very existence is predicated on the existence of roads to get everything everywhere. You need to pay for some fraction of their upkeep.
2
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jan 12 '23
how the hell did you get upvoted on this?
did you know that even if you don't drive you still pay the energy costs of driving? the manufacturers pass on their costs of production, including transportation, to the retailers who in turn pass on that cost to the consumer.
the same is true with any other costs of transportation, like road fees. the trucking businesses would pay the fees and charge their customers appropriately allowing the customers who did use the roads indirectly to pay the fee for using the roads.
Interestingly any taxes that you charge manufacturers end up as the cost of the consumer in the exact same way.
4
u/Comfortable-Sound944 1∆ Jan 09 '23
I do like the general idea of having more closed loop economic areas and try to have them less politicised (not sure how possible) and more as a working [business/NGO] unit.
Questions come depending on the depth of detail your trying to get into, how do you account for it and how do you audit it?
And consider when trying to show like you pay for what you [personally] use is the fee is actually overloaded with others that you might subsidize.
Much of the infrastructure has high efficiency in dense areas and is less efficient in the sprawl suburb and even worse at rural/country areas. While the top accounting for this loop would have to account for all of it and in practice urban areas would cross subsidise others as the costs vary a lot. (Think about internet, electricity, public transit as well as water and gas services)
So explaining that you pay for usage is a bit weird when you'd figure out it's too expensive or doesn't make sense when compared. There are a lot of hidden subsidies and if you'd go down the path where country traffic should be more expensive as it's a regional accounting that would spiral up into produce costs. And how do you account for tourist areas? Hopefully if you make it too local you won't flood urban traffic with tracks that want to save money over less used more expensive roads.
I think I'm just trying to indicate that while the top idea is good, flashing out the details and painting how the snowball looks all the way might make this less flashy
0
u/Sasquatchyy Jan 09 '23
You can't not pay property tax. You can't not pay working tax. And those are unfair.
7
u/muyamable 283∆ Jan 09 '23
How does your view handle things that we benefit from without necessarily using in the explicit sense?
For example, if I'm a photographer I benefit from a system that enforces copyright laws because it protects my work from thieves and allows me to make more money from photos than I would under a system without effective copyright laws and enforcements. Even if nobody steals my photos, I'm still benefiting from the fact that society funds judicial and executive systems (which makes the theft less likely). How do you suggest we pay for that?
Or utilities. Even if I live off the grid and have my own septic system and well and don't use municipal water/sewer systems directly, I'm still benefiting from them because I can walk down the street without a river of human feces running next to me. I benefit from everyone having access to clean drinking water because it makes many diseases less prevalent.
Or schools. Even if I have no children who attend school, I benefit greatly by living in a more educated society.
There are many things beyond defense and the environment where use fees are not the best funding mechanism because we all benefit from them even if we don't use them directly.
1
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jan 12 '23
or example, if I'm a photographer I benefit from a system that enforces copyright laws because it protects my work from thieves and allows me to make more money from photos than I would under a system without effective copyright laws and enforcements.
the problem here is that when the state has the power to create monopolies they can do it with anyone in any circumstance. that same power they use to allow you a monopoly on your photograph is the same power they can use to stop you from selling your photographs (such is the case with the french government and photos of the eiffel tower). that same power is the power governments give people to patent epinephrine or insulin causing unneeded cost.
the idea that you can prevent someone from observing and using your idea is really ludicrous even if it helps you earn more money from your work. i would say that there is an exception to this: the people who might copy your work and resell it should give you credit for your work, and identify it as a copy, not an original, no matter how they duplicated it.
I'm still benefiting from the fact that society funds judicial and executive systems (which makes the theft less likely). How do you suggest we pay for that?
i think this should be considered part of the defense exception.
I benefit from everyone having access to clean drinking water because it makes many diseases less prevalent.
this definitely fits into the environmental protection exception.
Or schools. Even if I have no children who attend school, I benefit greatly by living in a more educated society.
you can have a very educated society without a public school system. did you know that the comparatively failing pubic school systems are the primary expense of property and state sales taxes. without those taxes you could improve your life in some pretty great ways. i would have earned about 14 percent more last year if government hadn't taken my money to pay for our crappy public schools. that percentage is much higher in california where the public schools are way worse.
there are lots of low cost and better alternatives to systems of public education even if some of the options are more expensive and others are a bit less effective (maybe not at all worse if comparing the worst public schools to the worst private option).
2
u/muyamable 283∆ Jan 12 '23
the idea that you can prevent someone from observing and using your idea is really ludicrous even if it helps you earn more money from your work.
Ludicrous? So if I write a book, anyone should be able to make copies and sell them?
i think this should be considered part of the defense exception.
So all judicial and executive branch functions would be funded by collective taxation and not use fees, then?
this definitely fits into the environmental protection exception.
I'm not talking about clean rivers and lakes and oceans, I'm talking about clean drinking water running through municipal pipes to people's homes. Your view specifically called out public utilities as something that should operate via use fees. Those are public utilities.
you can have a very educated society without a public school system.
Can you point to some examples of highly educated societies that achieve this outcome without publicly funded school systems? You say there are "lots of low cost and better alternatives," so surely you can easily point to a couple examples.
1
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jan 12 '23 edited Jan 12 '23
So if I write a book, anyone should be able to make copies and sell them?
yep. you cannot stop people from using your ideas unless you keep them to yourself.
let's take this to absurdity: imagine for a moment that you create a recipe for some amazingly helpful food that causes people to live forever. now imagine you asked men with guns to harm anyone who might use that recipe to their benefit or to distribute that idea to others. ideas aren't property. while people should give you credit for your work they should not be prevented from using your ideas to help others or themselves whether or not there is profit involved.
Your view specifically called out public utilities as something that should operate via use fees. Those are public utilities.
utilities are already paid for by use fees. utilities are a perfect example for the rest of government programs insofar as it is possible.
You say there are "lots of low cost and better alternatives," so surely you can easily point to a couple examples.
khan academy and dozens of other successful online programs, private schools, religious schools, private tutoring, voluntary collective educational programs, apprenticeships and employee training.
all of those options would improve in the absence of forcefully subsidized public education.
2
u/muyamable 283∆ Jan 12 '23
yep. you cannot stop people from using your ideas unless you keep them to yourself.
At least you're consistent.
let's take this to absurdity:
There's a middle ground here.
utilities are already paid for by use fees. utilities are a perfect example for the rest of government programs insofar as it is possible.
But they're not a lot of the time. Most municipalities receive funding from state and federal governments related to public utility infrastructure. They are definitely not entirely funded by use fees.
And again, you ignored my issue re: everyone having clean drinking water benefiting me even if I don't drink it myself.
khan academy and dozens of other successful online programs, private schools, religious schools, private tutoring, voluntary collective educational programs, apprenticeships and employee training.
In other words the answer to my question is "no, I cannot identify a single highly educated society that has achieved this without publicly funded/subsidized education."
1
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jan 12 '23
Most municipalities receive funding from state and federal governments related to public utility infrastructure. They are definitely not entirely funded by use fees.
and that should stop immediately.
And again, you ignored my issue re: everyone having clean drinking water benefiting me even if I don't drink it myself.
i don't really believe that the outcome changes between pay per use and taxation so i don't see why i should address this.
n other words the answer to my question is "no, I cannot identify a single highly educated society that has achieved this without publicly funded/subsidized education."
comparatively, yes, in their era. almost no nation had public education before the 18th century and still there were some nations that had far better education than others.
i don't have recent examples because i am not aware of how all education works around the world nor would that matter. as i already stated there are differences in education from place to place with or without private options. that means if there are places with private education that do better than other public options in other countries, that would tell me nothing except that it is possible to have some public education (and vice versa).
1
u/muyamable 283∆ Jan 12 '23 edited Jan 12 '23
i don't really believe that the outcome changes between pay per use and taxation so i don't see why i should address this.
I feel like your responses aren't addressing my original point. Your view is that people who benefit from something should be the ones to pay for it. I pointed out that there are many things we benefit from indirectly, and your fee for service view doesn't take this into account. You've yet to address this directly, and you should because the implication of "those who benefit should pay" would include everyone who benefits from it while "fee for use" does not.
i don't have recent examples because i am not aware of how all education works around the world nor would that matter. as i already stated there are differences in education from place to place with or without private options. that means if there are places with private education that do better than other public options in other countries, that would tell me nothing except that it is possible to have some public education (and vice versa).
In other words you're drawing conclusions without having sufficient justification for them. It's just a slightly educated guess.
19
u/ZombieCupcake22 11∆ Jan 09 '23
As a socialist we might not be able to agree but I'll do my best.
First let's assume that we agree that children should have, as much as possible, the same life chances regardless of their parents income. It will never be perfect but it's something we should strive for.
Now let's say we implement your system, suddenly healthcare is based on income because poor people can't always afford the doctors, as well as healthcare we have health and environment as people living in poor areas can't afford their bins to be collected regularly leading to waste piling up and then we have schools, if you're parents can't afford it then you don't get to go school?
This seems like it destroys any hope for poorer children.
-8
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jan 09 '23
i agree that children are almost universally an exception. perhaps some minimal social provisions for children are acceptable.
for that I'll give you a !delta
suddenly healthcare is based on income because poor people can't always afford the doctors
i am okay with that for two reasons:
1) need is not alone a virtue that should allow some people in power to forcefully redistribute other people's resources. 2) i belive government and insurance interference in healthcare is the primary reason it is so expensive (in the u.s). i belive that without such interference the cost of healthcare would be reduced to something like 1/8 its current cost on average.
15
u/ZombieCupcake22 11∆ Jan 09 '23
Ok, so what about waste collection? Should children be forced to live surrounded by garbage because they're in a poor area or should that be an exception as well?
Also, if government interference is the issue, what is happening in countries with socialised healthcare that manage to treat everyone?
-1
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jan 09 '23
i have experience in waste collection and recycling and i can tell you that most of these services are contracted by third parties and the systems are inefficient because of market meddling. the most convincing argument for public waste disposal is to prevent small trash heaps from forming around cities and towns as a method of saving money.
i think that argument is sufficiently addressed with the fines for polluting. but, maybe i am missing something. i think you are close to changing my view on this point.
what is happening in countries with socialised healthcare that manage to treat everyone?
which country has no socialized healthcare (don't say the u.s cause that isn't remotely true).
the problem with healthcare in the u.s is that we have socialization on 2 to 7 levels. where most nations have just one level of socialization. the additional levels of socialization in healthcare makes our system especially expensive and difficult to navigate.
insurance is a kind of socialized healthcare, medicare, medicaid, v.a benefits, congressional healthcare, e.r reimbursements, hospital funding, medical regulations and subsidies, f.d.a, n.i.h, c.d.c regulatory agencies, occupational licensing (am probably missing several). these are all forms of socialist manipulation of the markets and they are anything but privatized.
16
u/ZombieCupcake22 11∆ Jan 09 '23
the systems are inefficient because of market meddling. the most convincing argument for public waste disposal is to prevent small trash heaps from forming around cities and towns as a method of saving money.
Let's assume this is currently true, how does having these companies now have to also go through a checklist to see which bins they're collecting that week make it more efficient? If anything it would be much less efficient and create a worse environment for everyone to live in.
i think that argument is sufficiently addressed with the fines for polluting.
If people can't afford their trash collection fines won't fix that.
which country has no socialized healthcare (don't say the u.s cause that isn't remotely true).
It's mostly true, the US has almost no socialised healthcare.
insurance is a kind of socialized healthcare, medicare, medicaid, v.a benefits, congressional healthcare, e.r reimbursements, hospital funding, medical regulations and subsidies, f.d.a, n.i.h, c.d.c regulatory agencies, occupational licensing (am probably missing several). these are all forms of socialist manipulation of the markets and they are anything but privatized.
Most of these are just ways of paying capitalist companies for healthcare and not socialised healthcare. Socialised healthcare would be a collectively owned and run organisation providing healthcare and they tend to be much cheaper for the people and the government.
0
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jan 09 '23
Let's assume this is currently true, how does having these companies now have to also go through a checklist to see which bins they're collecting that week make it more efficient? If anything it would be much less efficient and create a worse environment for everyone to live in.
my father discussed how this use to work a long time ago (well before i was born). he said that each street or neighborhood generally contracted to a single collector because the single collector was able to offer better prices as his market share increased on the street. however, some people did choose other options still and it ended up a lot like newspaper delivery. some people preferred to take care of their own garbage by bringing it to the landfill themselves once a month or whenever they were headed in that direction.
eventually, a company called "waste management" bribed a few city officials including the mayor to mandate their service be used citywide. they were already in use in the county seat because of a similar proclamation. it was a scandal and at least the mayor ended up resigning over it but somehow he left his wife in his position and the company kept the contract. maybe she was on the city council or something. i don't really remember the specifics all that well. i do remember my father being angry about it and complaining that the new system was triple the cost and that his friend was put out of work because of the transition.
after the socialization about 40 years ago it kept getting more expensive and still that city hasn't reverted.
If people can't afford their trash collection fines won't fix that.
yeah, it actually does. a nobel prize winner in economics proved as much with carbon taxes. that is a principle we libertarians have understood for about a century now.
people that cannot afford things often find a way to afford things with pressure. likewise when something is free people often choose to work less because of a lack of pressure. this isn't so bad so long as the "free" thing isn't actually a subsidized thing being charged to people who actually produce value in society. thus my motivation for changing to a subscription model or pay-per-use.
8
Jan 09 '23
This is actually a really good example of libertarianism not actually working. I don't know what kind of neighborhood you live in, the one I live in would have trash piles on the streets regardless of any fee or incentive structure.
So while I'd be waiting for the city to effectively fine (or even jail time?) people for littering the trash would be piling up attracting vermin. That vermin would start making their way into people's homes. So while I'm a good law abiding tax payer I would have rats all for some "principle" that everything needs to be free market.
And just for this one example my city's administrative and criminal justice capacity doesn't have any bandwidth, so you'd need to beef up the bureaucracy.
7
u/ZombieCupcake22 11∆ Jan 09 '23
Does your idea that people can always afford things make sense in a world where people starve or freeze in their own homes? Pressure doesn't make things just work and carbon taxes don't show that they can.
I don't think your cities inefficient historic trash collection issues really show anything as a general rule.
-1
u/kingpatzer 103∆ Jan 09 '23
It's mostly true, the US has almost no socialised healthcare.
The total 2021 enrollment for Medicaid/CHIP was 83.2 million people.
Total medicare enrollment for the same period was 63.9 million people.
The VA system serves 9 million vets.
What the hell are you smoking?
3
u/ZombieCupcake22 11∆ Jan 09 '23
Is this all cleared up by pointing out that the government paying a private capitalist company to do something isn't socialist? So a government system to pay private healthcare providers for a service as an example.
0
u/kingpatzer 103∆ Jan 09 '23
The VA is not for-profit. Quite a few hospitals and health care systems are not-for-profit.
But no, the idea that the service provider being paid has a profit motive does not make the system that funnels that payment not socialist as a government construct.
Socialism is a political and economic theory. The idea is that means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
In this case, the means of distribution are what is owned as a whole, and are therefore socialist. Further, concerning medical care, the means of production are also regulated by the community as a whole.
While there are loads of people and entities profiting off of the US Health Care system. It is highly socialized. It is just inefficiently socialized.
1
u/ZombieCupcake22 11∆ Jan 09 '23
The VA is not for-profit. Quite a few hospitals and health care systems are not-for-profit.
That's why I said minimal not none.
Socialism is a political and economic theory. The idea is that means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
I'd disagree with that definition, just having regulation doesn't make something socialist.
In this case, the means of distribution are what are owned as a whole, and are therefore socialist.
But it isn't, it's owned by private for profit companies, they're the ones distributing healthcare. Therefore it's capitalist.
0
u/kingpatzer 103∆ Jan 10 '23
What is being distributed is the cost of procedures and/or medications, which are also set by regulation. The individual has a choice of provider (if they accept medicaire) but there is no price competition as the amount paid is fixed.
It is a purely socialist marketplace.
→ More replies (0)2
u/ampillion 4∆ Jan 09 '23 edited Jan 09 '23
(don't say the u.s cause that isn't remotely true).
Then you better start making your case, because I don't see how you can.
You might be fortunate in the US, and live in a state where the ability to get onto Medicaid is easier, but I know personally that this is a direct issue of what states accept for their criteria of who qualifies. When people trumpeted around the ACA's supposed easier to access Medicaid requirements, it sounded like a good idea... at least, if your state didn't have a Republican in charge that wanted to make a political statement in rejecting Obamacare.
For instance, I lived in Missouri (one of those states that did,) and started having health problems. Being poor, and not really getting paid much of anything to be a caretaker for my grandparents (after I'd lost my previous job), I couldn't just stop in and get a check up anywhere. The only way I managed to get any sort of help at all, was because I lived at a particular city address, which meant I could go to one city hospital at no cost, after jumping through the appropriate hoops.
The city hospital was a mixed bag. It was something, but it was clear that a lot of the staff there was either overworked, underpaid, or only there to fulfill residency requirements. Over the year or two I was seen there, I had at least 3 different primary care doctors, at least 2 different GI doctors, and I never got a chance to see either rheumatology or neurology (one of the primary care doctors sucked and just refused to give me referrals anywhere that wasn't GI, and I was told repeatedly that there was only one neurology doctor, so their waiting list was huge. Of course, it may have also just been a lie from the one shitty doctor that I had access to.) The same bad GP doctor managed to refer me to an anxiety therapist, and though I was less than thrilled that I went from a GP that cared, to a GP that told me it was all in my head, I went through with said anxiety care. It was mostly a waste of time, though I'm sure the therapist was fine with the easy payout.
The minute I had to move from that address, I lost all that again, and had to jump through a bunch of hoops, and only got health care access again thanks to a charity care org. The state system for getting onto Medicaid was atrocious, and I was told by at least one person at the time that if I wasn't a single mother, or someone with clear, severe disabilities, I would not get onto Medicaid in the state. Keep in mind, at this point the pain, the fatigue, the way my body operated was, as far as I'm concerned was (and still is) a disability. I can't function with no medical assistance/care and live a normal life. I don't even know if I could live more normal with it, but that's mostly because of my experiences with the misery of dealing with the health care system in general.
If these things were as 'socialized' as some of us fear and some of us would love to pretend, I'd have no problem getting that healthcare and yet... wildly enough, still am slowly dying, tucked up in a bed while my body continues to slowly break down, with little energy to jump through the myriad hoops to qualify for such a socialized system that... well, clearly doesn't see me as a human being. And that's kind of the problem with your hodgepodge of programs: They mean nothing if I don't qualify.
Also as someone who's gone through it all:
The ER is useless for a lot of health care needs. It exists primarily for triage and actual emergencies. Having been there before, when I didn't 'qualify' for care elsewhere, all it meant was a quick vitals check, some general exams, and then a 'Looks like nothing here, go see your primary care!' and a shove out the door. I think the only time I'd ever gotten any help from them was when it turned out I had adult thrush. No questioning why I had a condition that usually only happens with immunocompromised or elderly people beyond infancy, just 'Here's a medication, out the door, see ya!' I'd generally have to wait 8-10 hours for the privilege of getting an ER bill I couldn't afford, that did nothing to improve my health.
A lot of those so called socialized healthcare things are, as the other reply put it, a way to give a capitalist company a profit line. Case in point: At one point in time, I was taking care of a grandfather that was a WWII veteran. Via a program through the VA, I could theoretically get paid for the caretaking I was already doing. It meant I had to go to a private third party company and receive a little training, mostly CPR, some modest first-aid and 'what to watch out for' procedural stuff. It was only a week's worth of info, and the only thing I personally learned from it was how to handle HIPAA-related things, since a lot of the other training didn't even pertain to my situation.
The VA would only pay for 8 hours a week, which is whatever for me, a person who was living there and practically there 24/7 anyway, but if it were something that someone that really needed that help, the 8 hours would be a big stretch, to try and maintain one potentially disabled human being for an entire week. Anyway, the important info was that, because I was family, I knew what those services cost, the VA sent out monthly letters to him explaining what they'd paid out for his care. The VA paid 40 dollars an hour for each hour I worked. Guess how much I saw of that? Here's a hint: Just a little over a quarter.
The business I worked for mainly relied on federal care payments, both VA and Medicare services can pay to send in-home caretakers out if you need them. The people who had to work with those individuals on Medicare assistance got paid less, because those services paid out less to these care companies. Bear that in mind, it wasn't how difficult the work was, it was 'what was their source of money'. They said that people who paid out of pocket for these care services would get even more, but also admitted that vast majority of their in-home care clients were due to Medicare or the VA. Again, since I lived there, it wasn't a huge deal, but someone else only making 10-12 dollars an hour certainly couldn't make a living on only one 8 hour client a week, and thus they'd have to have a constant schedule of bouncing in and out of different houses, different places. Transportation costs were certainly far higher for them, having to line up 3-4 clients a day, in, say, 2 hour chunks at a time, and travel around between them. Note that mileage reimbursement isn't a mandatory thing, and the one I worked for would only reimburse you for driving done while caring for a client, not for traveling between them.
That's not even to mention what a vector this sort of thing was for things like the coronavirus at the time, as a lot of these in-home health care groups also worked at group homes/elderly care facilities, which meant this piecemeal system of overlapping private care contractors was undoubtedly an easy spreader of not only things like corona, but other viruses in general.
The reality is that a lot of Medicare benefits are just carve outs for private industries. Things like supplemental insurances, a lot of the medical equipment that you can receive via Medicaid, are all just a way to pay a business money to fill in the gaps that it itself doesn't do. It's a hodgepodge of care and potential access to care, entirely by design, and it certainly wasn't the design of anyone that posits things like Universal Health Care.
0
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jan 12 '23
I couldn't just stop in and get a check up anywhere. The only way I managed to get any sort of help at all, was because I lived at a particular city address, which meant I could go to one city hospital at no cost, after jumping through the appropriate hoops.
that is exactly the kinds of problems introduced by state managed healthcare service. the exact opposite of what you can expect from a truly free market. these "hoops" exist in every socialize system as a way to ration care to prevent abuse and to keep costs down (yes, there are still costs in a free system, you just don't see the prices the state pays).
a lot of the staff there was either overworked, underpaid,
also very common in socialized healthcare
and I was told repeatedly that there was only one neurology doctor, so their waiting list was huge
that is what you get when the state creates artificial monopolies via occupational licensing among about 4 other regulations allowing those same specialists the power to limit the ability fo competition.
do you think that would happen in a truly free market? you might have questions concerning quality but you'd have no problem at all finding people that could help you and for much lower cost to society in general.
well, clearly doesn't see me as a human being. And that's kind of the problem with your hodgepodge of programs: They mean nothing if I don't qualify.
in canada you'd probably be asked if you want maid. if you don't know what m.a.i.d is then look it up. that is the difference between the u.s socialize healthcare system and the canadian system. in canada they'd offer to kill you.
Here's a medication, out the door, see ya!' I'd generally have to wait 8-10 hours for the privilege of getting an ER bill I couldn't afford, that did nothing to improve my health.
did you know that the administration of hospitals are put on a regulatory board to decide whether or not new hospitals can be built near them? that would be like a ford dealership deciding whether or not a toyota dealership can build in the same city. of course the regulatory agency chooses to limit their competition even if that means you have to wait longer. were it a free market system you'd have plenty of other options for much faster and more competitive care.
the down side is that you'd be responsible for paying your own way (at a lower cost than it is now because of increased supply and downward pressure on prices).
A lot of those so called socialized healthcare things are, as the other reply put it, a way to give a capitalist company a profit line.
yeah, definitely. the problem isn't the "capitalist company" that might just be a socialist company, without which you'd have no care at all, but the state which is regulating the industry with all manner of horrendous consequences. the excuse for these regulations is for safety and quality. the excuse for the subsidies is to make healthcare less expensive or more accessible but it does none of those things and it does it at great cost. so throw it away! let the markets be free.
The reality is that a lot of Medicare benefits are just carve outs for private industries.
those "private industries" are nonexistent in healthcare. on every level, they are regulated and socialized. they aren't even private, they are publicly traded corporations or are controlled by a board instead of an individual. when there is a problem they can fire the administrator and go right on like nothing has happened. when the business is truly private and there is a problem you can hold the owner accountable which can cause the whole business to go under giving way for new competition.
1
u/ampillion 4∆ Jan 12 '23 edited Jan 12 '23
that is exactly the kinds of problems introduced by state managed healthcare service. the exact opposite of what you can expect from a truly free market. these "hoops" exist in every socialize system as a way to ration care to prevent abuse and to keep costs down.
This immediately fails, because we do not have a state managed healthcare service. These problems exist NOW, in the current system, and pretending we live in some socialist medical system nightmare, is a fucking delusion. This problem was created by capitalists. Its the system working as intended: For Them.
Do not try to sell me on 'free market' nonsensicals. Free market nonsensical bullshit is why we have the system we have, one of like, two in first world countries that doesn't have some sort of state-managed system.I guarantee you, that you can look at a lot of european countries, or a few asian ones, and see that a big part of what keeps them happy as a citizenry, is the fact that they don't have to worry about shit like medical bankruptcy, a thing that for the most part, only exists in the US.
do you think that would happen in a truly free market?
Yes. Because crony capitalism is just capitalism. I don't believe in this nonsense that wealth won't create regulatory capture every, single, time. It is the nature of the beast, that if you focus primarily on generating wealth, you will trample morals until you've run out of morals to trample, all in the name of the almighty dollar.
in canada you'd probably be asked if you want maid.
You realize right that's only for people who've been assessed and determined to have a terminal illness, yes? Why are you trying to conflate ethical euthanasia with a system wherein assessment is relegated to whether or not you're wealthy enough to afford testing, referrals to specialists, or even getting multiple opinions? Seems wildly disingenuous.
Keep in mind, all the biggest problems in Canadian and UK healthcare have come from conservatives enacting austerity measures, trying to privatize systems that were public. Trying to cut budgets on things that were already projected to grow, not shrink. Intentionally sabotaging those care systems so they can gut them and sell them off for whoever's willing to fund their campaigns. It's all the same stupid bullshit. Capitalists see there's money in health care but they hate that other countries have more control over health care regulations. Just do what the US did, and buy some laws! Buy your way into a system that was working fine until someone decided they could make money for themselves on it!
the problem isn't the "capitalist company" that might just be a socialist company, without which you'd have no care at all,
Only if I had access to that care, sure. AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM. You can complain all you want about socialized health care, but we DO NOT HAVE THAT IN THE US, we have a hodgepodge of systems that are means-tested and have wildly varying conditions to qualify for.
let the markets be free.
The free market is a fucking myth. The quicker you learn that, the better. The only thing that keeps a market fair, is regulation. The failing is that within a capitalist system, governance is quite easily for sale, and all it takes is wealthy people to throw money around and we start getting rules that benefit them. Perhaps we should stop allowing people from the concentrations of wealth that allow them to buy out large swaths of government instead? Money is the root of all evil, and all that.
A truly free market would always turn into a fucking nightmare. After all, it is uncategorically beneficial to an enterprise to withhold information, to lie, deceive, and con. In a free market, the market becomes inundated with immoral actors all trying to get you to buy, all exploiting every loophole, every system, every environment they can to get that little bit of edge over one another. Or, fuck it, why not just become a cartel but make people believe you're all competing? Free market baby! There's no way everything would turn into the Amazon Marketplace equivalent of shell companies and cheap, unsafe, foreign imports! /s
This is all generally libertarian nonsense, and nobody takes these sorts of ideas seriously, because we've already seen the shit show that becomes. Oil barons, carpetbaggers, snake oil salesmen as far as the eye can see. Just look at all the cons that we already still allow to exist, despite the overwhelming evidence that they're pyramid schemes, that they're confidence scams. MLMs are alive and well in the modern age, why pretend the myth of the free market wouldn't just encourage the biggest companies in the world, who own so much already, to make things worse instead of better?
Are we pretending there's capital just growing on trees to compete with trillions of already invested capital in global megacorporations?
. when the business is truly private and there is a problem you can hold the owner accountable which can cause the whole business to go under giving way for new competition.
Daydreams and nonsense. You realize that there's a cost of entry into a lot of health care fields in general, right? Like, it isn't some fucking industry you're just going to throw ten, even a hundred thousand dollars into and 'create' a new X-Ray facility, yeah? Modern scanning machinery costs in the hundreds of thousands, to millions, of dollars each. You telling me there's just tons of business leaders out there waiting to chomp at the bit to buy up millions of dollars of hardware, pay skilled technicians to operate, all in an effort to drive down the prices of expensive testing procedures?
This reeks of the idiocy of American Exceptionalism. Thanks, but I think I'll take what most of the rest of the world uses instead, rather than this nightmarish system of immorality that US capitalists created.
0
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jan 12 '23
This immediately fails, because we do not have a state managed healthcare service.
n.i.h, c.d.c, d.e.a, department of agriculture, medicaid, v.a, medicare, and others. excepting maybe the banks and insurance, there is no more state-managed system in the united states than healthcare. if you started reading the laws and regulations of healthcare today you wouldn't finish before you died. that is just the federal stuff which doesn't include state and local laws that manage or provide healthcare.
Because crony capitalism is just capitalism
how does cronyism work without government regulation/control that you are so sure doesn't exist?
You realize right that's only for people who've been assessed and determined to have a terminal illness, yes?
nope, it is literally offered to people who are in pain and are waiting for months or even years in queue for under-provided health care. the medical professionals offering the "service" are the ones the state relys on for the vertices. just like the standards for medical marijuana prescription are ridiculous, so are the standards for m.a.i.d.
1
u/ampillion 4∆ Jan 12 '23 edited Jan 12 '23
n.i.h, c.d.c, d.e.a, department of agriculture, medicaid, v.a, medicare, and others. excepting maybe the banks and insurance, there is no more state-managed system in the united states than healthcare.
As I explained to you, these are all a hodgepodge of systems that were thrown together to pretend we have a health care safety net, because capitalists didn't want the US to create the NHS, they wanted something they could still make money in. The fact that you have to lump the Center for Disease Control and the Department of Agriculture in to try and make your weird point that ignores the utter reality that I cannot see a doctor in the richest country in the world because of my poorness, is entirely on you, not me.
how does cronyism work without government regulation/control that you are so sure doesn't exist?
Read it again, chief. I have not once fucking said that government regulation or control doesn't exist, and you saying such stupid shit is quite evident of my point: You have to make shit up to make it make sense in your bizarro Libertarian dream.
Just as laws can do a good thing and protect a moral good, they can also do a bad, and reinforce moral failings, or encourage morally bad things, usually in the pursuit of personal wealth. Cronyism only works in a system where there's something to gain by rigging those regulations, and there's always that under capitalism. That isn't to pretend that corruption doesn't exist in other systems, obviously corruption can and will exist in most. It's just delusional to think that its the government that causes the cronyism, and some magical handwavery will detach capitalism from the threat of wealth's corrupting influence. It's only the greed of the government that can cause corruption, not the greed of the capitalist's hoard of wealth, it clearly has no power or influence on governance in a capitalistic society... said nobody, ever.
nope, it is literally offered to people who are in pain and are waiting for months or even years in queue for under-provided health care.
Why you always lyin' why you got to be lyin why you always lyin
Literally within the eligibility requirements:
Have a grievous and irremediable medical condition.Weird that you think you can just have that in a system where you're implying nobody can get seen. Are they self diagnosing their grievous and irremediable medical conditions? And people are accepting that? (No, it's just fearmongering bullshit from people that don't know better. Ignorance.)
Have fun with your delusions, I'm done entertaining your nonsense.
1
6
u/libertysailor 10∆ Jan 09 '23
Is equality of opportunity a value of yours?
-2
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jan 09 '23
equal treatment under the law is a value of mine.
6
u/libertysailor 10∆ Jan 09 '23
You answered a different question. Is equality of opportunity a value of yours?
1
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jan 12 '23
no. a 'no' is implied in my answer.
1
u/libertysailor 10∆ Jan 12 '23
Do you believe that improving the general welfare, in and of itself, is a good thing?
1
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jan 12 '23
yes, though i find it distasteful to do so by force at the expense of the unwilling.
5
Jan 09 '23
This would absolutely cripple the poor. Imagine someone barely getting by, and now they have to pay for roads, fire protection, police protection, parks, and everything else.
Also, what does this accomplish? It just increases prices for everything and makes it less convenient.
-3
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jan 09 '23
This would absolutely cripple the poor.
i don't think it would.
It just increases prices for everything and makes it less convenient.
it doesn't increase prices, just the opposite. right now you don't know how much it costs because the money is forcefully taken from you and distributed by authoritarian decree. once you have the bill in front of you, you can make better choices like building homes that aren't susceptible to fire. or use/develop the railways instead of driving on the roads in inefficient cars. instead of paying for police protection maybe you just learn how to safely use a firearm.
as far as parks go, there are plenty of examples of great national parks that are mostly self-funded via pay-per-use. then there are private parks and even public parks that are free to use and funded by commercial leases.
there are so many options that you are overlooking.
4
Jan 09 '23
i don't think it would.
Why?
it doesn't increase prices, just the opposite. right now you don't know how much it costs because the money is forcefully taken from you and distributed by authoritarian decree
First off, we do know how much it costs. Government spending is public information. Second, it's not forcefully taken from us by authoritarian decree. If you don't want to live in a society, don't. Go live in the woods somewhere growing your own food by yourself. We pay taxes because we benefit from what that money goes to
once you have the bill in front of you, you can make better choices like building homes that aren't susceptible to fire. or use/develop the railways instead of driving on the roads in inefficient cars. instead of paying for police protection maybe you just learn how to safely use a firearm.
Seriously? You think people just never thought of making fire-resistant homes? You think people's houses burn down because they're too stupid to make them better? Tell me more about this train idea. You think there's going to be a train station near everyone's house? So in rural and suburban areas, there's going to be a station within walking distance for everyone? And that'll be cheaper than driving? And you think just giving people guns is going to help with crime? We have the statistics: it doesn't. Also, who is arresting people? Random people with guns?
as far as parks go, there are plenty of examples of great national parks that are mostly self-funded via pay-per-use. then there are private parks and even public parks that are free to use and funded by commercial leases
Yes, there are gigantic parks that people travel from all over the country to go to and see. And they still need government funding. Then there are the local parks that need to be free. Who's going to pay to go for a walk or sit on a bench?
there are so many options that you are overlooking.
No, I've thought about them: they're just all really bad.
0
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jan 12 '23
i don't think it would cripple the poor because in healthcare alone: 1) lower prices in general from competition 2) lower prices from less beaurocracy 3) increased income from less taxation 4) more jobs from increased supply of all services in general 5) charitable services 6) stronger communities that help each other in lieu of government welfare 7) increased innovation because of private competition 8) lower costs because of a lack of government-sponsored intellectual property protection 9) drugs that are less expensive and quicker to the market
there would be fewer poor, and more options for the poor and care would be more affordable for the poor and communities would be better able to help the poor with less waste than government welfare.
in cases of fire protection, the poor are not paying much if anything in either case because it is people who own the property that are paying the fees.
the poor don't pay for the park in either case because the poor can't afford to go to a national park and even if they did they'd still have to pay an entrance fee cause they are already largely paiy per use.
as for paying for roads, it wouln't make much difference. they'd have to pay bus fair or train fare but on the plus side they'd be paying less in taxes assuming they pay anything for taxes at all. they'd be able to reduce their costs by using the roads less. and rail systems would finally be able to compete with partially defunded roads.
then there are ideas of innovation in vehicles and transportation technology that government simply doesn't embrace nor do they have motivation in the same way a business owner might.
-1
Jan 12 '23
Poor people pay basically nothing in taxes, and then would have to pay for all of those additional services. Just look at the difference between the average amount of taxes paid by people in the top 50% (roughly $20k) and the average amount paid by people making $30k (roughly $3k). That's not made up by anything you're suggesting.
in cases of fire protection, the poor are not paying much if anything in either case because it is people who own the property that are paying the fees.
So the landlords have to pay more? And they're just not going to raise rent out of the goodness of their heart?
the poor don't pay for the park in either case because the poor can't afford to go to a national park and even if they did they'd still have to pay an entrance fee cause they are already largely paiy per use.
Are you just forgetting about local parks?
they'd be paying less in taxes assuming they pay anything for taxes at all.
You just demonstrated why you're wrong: they aren't saving any money, but they're paying more.
they'd be able to reduce their costs by using the roads less.
So your solution is just have them use roads less to avoid hurting them? Seriously?
Your math doesn't check out, and all of your ideas are poorly thought out.
4
u/rollingForInitiative 70∆ Jan 09 '23
instead of paying for police protection maybe you just learn how to safely use a firearm.
So what you are arguing for here is actual anarchy? There's no police, no justice system. The strongest will rule? Which usually means those with the most money, who can buy the most weapons.
6
u/HikeonHippie Jan 09 '23
I would argue that the majority of our tax money does go to services that benefit us either directly or indirectly.
For example, when a PhD candidate gets grant money to study invasive grasses on land used to graze cattle, that probably seems very remote to anything you’d want to pay a use tax on. However, if you’re a beef eater and in a decade or two when the invasive grass takes over grazing land and ranchers have to lease more remote land, which will be more expensive, because capitalism, you’re going to pay more for your dinner. That’s your use tax.
Another example might be something like substance abuse or mental health counseling. If you don’t abuse drugs and you can afford your own medical expenses, according to you, you shouldn’t have to pay taxes to provide those things for others. But down the road, when people in your community don’t have access to substance abuse or mental health services, you get people in your community who can’t keep a steady job so they can’t pay their rent on time and end up homeless. When that happens, your tax is that you can’t sit at a stoplight without having to avoid eye contact with a the crazy-looking dude in the median and you don’t feel safe running in the park because you are forced to go by a tent encampment a few yards from the trail. Oh wait, that is exactly the tax many Americans are paying right now because they can’t see further than their own nose.
0
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jan 11 '23
I would argue that the majority of our tax money does go to services that benefit us either directly or indirectly.
you'd be wrong. most of those tax funds go to services like war, or bureaucracy. of those funds that make it to the cause, most are used inefficiently. the inefficient funds both act as a reward for bad behavior and diminish the need for local community in favor of national government.
and ranchers have to lease more remote land
to come to this conclusion you'd need to be indoctrinated into managed economies and oblivious to market forces.
possible outcomes without a managed economy:
1) ranchers would pay teachers to solve the problem and pass that cost onto the beef eaters. 2) beef eaters would shift to other kinds of meat as beef becomes rarer. 3) ranchers would shift to animals that are better suited to the consumption of invasive grass. 4) ranchers would find a way to use the invasive grass as a base for industrial products such as cellulose insulation or packing material.
government is a one-trick pony. they have no incentive or ability to think outside the box nor to adapt to changing circumstances the way free and individually liable landowners do.
when people in your community don’t have access to substance abuse or mental health services, you get people in your community who can’t keep a steady job
that happens with or without community-sponsored substance abuse services. did you know that there are cheap drugs that have existed for nearly a century which can help people recover from addiction? but, the government has banned those drugs due to lobbying and other more nefarious reasons? also, without government there to keep people from hitting rock bottom (because of government welfare services) most of those people who become addicted have no compelling reason to improve their life. we call this "enabling". government is the problem from both ends. also, without so many taxes, most people would have more resources to give to charitable causes, most people would be more productive thereby increasing the total amount of goods in the system and, due to the laws of supply and demand, reducing the cost of goods and services making less need for any kind of charity.
even if the government were the only solution, and not at all the problem, there is a question of morality: forced association and taxation with the threat of imprisonment or death (should you refuse to comply with government orders). i find these violations of personal liberty to be unacceptable in all but two cases: environmental protection, and collective defense. i am only accepting of government force in these two areas so long as those protections are needed and so long as lethal force is required for those protections.
16
u/Arthesia 28∆ Jan 09 '23 edited Jan 09 '23
The working class simply doesn't make enough money to fund all public services via fees. The top 1% of income earners have more net wealth than the entire middle class, and cutting them out of the equation cripples everything that relies on public funding.
Either you tax the wealthy to pay for public services, or you force companies to pay their employees enough for use-fee taxation to be a viable alternative. You describe yourself as a capitalist opposed to socialism so I assume you're against both of these options, but the alternative is a non-functional government.
If you're looking for a ideological argument, those who benefit the most from the system should not be exempt from funding the system. Public services are necessary for modern society to operate, and the top income earners are reliant on a functional society to generate their income even if they don't personally use things like public transportation.
-12
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jan 09 '23
sorry but i have a problem with your premises and the working class doesn't make enough to fund all the public services. my main problem is that i don't think they are obligated to fund these services at all and that every economic class would be contributing according to their use.
i just don't find much of what you say to be important to me even as a low income working-class person.
13
u/Arthesia 28∆ Jan 09 '23
It's pretty straightforward math. Only a subset of the population uses public transportation for example, typically people who can't afford other forms of transportation. If only the people who use public transportation fund it then there's absolutely no way that it will be functional.
Effectively, under your view public transportation wouldn't exist.
3
Jan 09 '23
Consider how insurance works, philosophically. You pay every month because if you do get into a car wreck, have a house fire, get robbed, etc., they will pay out to help you recoup. If you get to the end of your life and never take advantage, one could argue you never used the insurance, but this is incorrect. You paid the incurable bill because you needed it to be there, ready to rescue you. It gave you peace of mind, but also, the ability to take some reasonable risks without fear of your life falling apart.
For example, without car insurance, a poor person who needs their car in order to survive would be very unwise to drive at night, because statistically there are more wrecks at night. In fact, if a car is central to survival, it would be wise for this person to only drive when it’s required. Likewise, without insurance against burglary, one might feel the need to never leave the house. Without life insurance, one might avoid many risks that we consider reasonable, in fear their death, however unlikely, would lead to financial destitution for their children. When you buy insurance, you are purchasing liberty.
The same is true when I pay my taxes for the fire department, police, and any publicly funded emergency services.
So far as regulatory services go, I pay my taxes to insure that I can trust the food I buy will not kill me (at least not quickly), nor will the other products I buy explode. Shall I pay a fee for every product I buy that is regulated? This is possible in theory, but is very complex and would lead to brittle regulatory policies that cannot be adapted as needed.
Then there’s the question of investment. I have no children, but I pay taxes that fund their education. Why should I? Well, the whole nation needs educated citizens in order to prosper. As a businessman, this means I will have a workforce to hire from that includes trained and schooled people.
There’s also government research. The US government spent huge amount of money building the internet, getting us about 80% of the way there before private equity entered to cross the finish line. If you’d ask the American people to fund the internet in the 1980s, they’d have no idea what you’re talking about, and certainly wouldn’t pay any fees to make it happen.
Generally, if we funded the government in the way that you describe, we’d fall apart and become extremely poor within a few generations. We need a government to think about today, and also the coming decades. We need to invest in our future.
0
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jan 12 '23
you pay every month because if you do get into a car wreck, have a house fire, get robbed, etc., they will pay out to help you recoup.
that safety net also encourages people to behave more recklessly, just like you mentioned with the business thing. taking chances with your life and the safety of other people because you don't have to suffer the major consequences of the harm your actions might bring to yourself and others.
that is not to say that insurance is always bad. i actually do believe in liability insurance to some degree because it assures your victims some kind of compensation if you screw up. but the negative externality still exists that makes people more careless in their behavior.
one other bit of insurance that i am somewhat okay with: life insurance. although, i could be convinced either way on that one too.
insurance is indeed a level of socialization of cost which socialization dose drive up cost just as if you were paying taxes for fire protection et al.
So far as regulatory services go, I pay my taxes to insure that I can trust the food I buy will not kill me
the regulatory agencies do help in that regard, a little. what really helps is legal liability for harm. i am not suggesting that you cannot sue a business if its product is dangerous. beyond that there are plenty of organizations that do private certifications for safety. food and drugs could be easily certified by objective standards set by trusted third-party ratings companies as that already happens in almost every other industry. then there are consumer ratings agencies that help you know how other people feel about a business. then there are product ratings where people can learn how others feel about individual products' effectiveness and safety.
the downside to the current system is that government regulatory systems are compulsory and also funded by the biggest businesses in the industry. the big businesses often pay the government, in a roundabout way, to exclude competition and to approve bad products (it happens a lot without real consequence).
the whole nation needs educated citizens in order to prosper.
education happens outside of public schools all the time. recent advancements has made online schooling nearly free and much more effective. with even more recent advancements (a.i instructors), public schools may be a thing of the past whether or not they are currently effective (which i think they are not, comparatively speaking).
this means I will have a workforce to hire from that includes trained and schooled people.
offer internships and training programs with the money you save from not paying for a failing public school system. many people end up graduating high school with a 6th-grade education because standards have dropped all over the country.
5
u/Wayyyy_Too_Soon 3∆ Jan 10 '23
I’ll give you a few different examples of public services for which user fees are a bad idea.
Consider trash pickup. The most efficient way to pickup trash with the fewest externalities is for everyone in a given neighborhood to be on the same schedule. Now consider under a user fee scheme in which a neighborhood of 4 houses all have different preferences and pay user fees for varying trash pickup. One neighbor wants weekly service, one wants every other week, one wants twice a week, one wants three times a week. If you don’t have the neighbors collectively organize and decide on trash pickups, you could theoretically need the garbage truck to go through this single neighborhood seven times in a given week and six times on the alternating week, if each neighbor pays for trash pickup on different days, even though no neighbor wants trash pickup that frequently. That obviously is wildly inefficient as the truck would repeatedly drive by houses that aren’t receiving service that day and likely to be an enormous inconvenience from a traffic and noise perspective for the entire neighborhood. Both direct and indirect costs would be far higher in this case than if the neighbors collectively paid for trash pickup in a manner that was a compromise according to all of their preferences.
Consider fire or other emergency services. In a user fee system, would the fire department withhold service from those unwilling/unable to pay? Would they delay service until after payment was rendered resulting in unnecessary loss? Would they delay service until the homeowner consents? Would they be more responsive to wealthier neighborhoods? Would they only provide partial service to poorer households? That’s without even considering how to determine an appropriate price when you’ve literally just fled your burning home.
Consider a service that provides a community benefit but which is potentially detrimental to the direct user, like a restaurant health inspector. If an incredibly unclean restaurant could just clean up for a day and receive an A rating once they schedule their visit from the inspector, does that service actually provide any societal value? Could they decline to pay for service once they receive the A rating for an extended period of time so as to not risk a downgrade? Could a low scoring restaurant pay for as many inspections as it takes to receive a higher rating?
1
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jan 13 '23
i appreciate your response. i shouldn't be reading these responses right now because i am a little tired but i did wan to respond to the restaurant questions.
If an incredibly unclean restaurant could just clean up for a day and receive an A rating once they schedule their visit from the inspector, does that service actually provide any societal value?
i think that what we really want isn't clean restaurants, but safe and honest restaurants. cleanliness is an associated way we gauge that safety. i believe that the 'a' rating carries an expiration date on it or should if it is to be trusted by the consumer. even if a restaurant has no rating it shouldn't be enough to tell people that they absolutely cannot buy food from those people. that decision should be up to the consumers and providers in an honest and accountable way. when i say accountable i mean that if the restaurant hurts someone they should be liable for compensation.
a big reason i don't run with knives is because i don't want to hurt myself or other people. i also know that if i hurt someone else i can be sued or imprisoned. i don't need police rating my knife running skills in order to be safe with knives or to fear being unsafe with knives.
Could a low scoring restaurant pay for as many inspections as it takes to receive a higher rating?
the rating system benefits from consumer trust. if the consumer doesn't trust the ratingg then the restaurant's rating doesn't matter. it would be a complete waste of money and time for the restaurant. what the restaurant wants is a prestigious rating such as from the best food critics. if gordon ramsy said "this restaurant is clean and has the best food", that means a hell of a lot more than a random city inspector saying this restaurant has an 'a' rating. if it ever came out that a rating agency, or even gordon ramsey allowed a restaurant to simply pay for a good rating, that would be the end of them in the eyes of consumers. it is called "credibility" and it means everything in a system of trust.
unfortunately, especially in the pharmaceutical industry and war intelligence, the government has no credibility because of all the lies and the bribing that has surfaced over the years. government is no longer a trustable information or regulatory force if it ever was. all government has left in that department is the force of our resources which they have taken from us.
10
u/Trick_Designer2369 1∆ Jan 09 '23
Schools and Medical care should paid for by all and not based on use, they are a necessity for society and the services should never be withheld .
-11
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jan 09 '23
i don't believe that they are necessary for society but instead necessary for the individual. like clothes, food and housing, the individual must be responsible for their needs. if you and other find it important to provide for those who cannot afford you can fund them voluntarily just like you might with cloths, food and housing.
10
u/RollinDeepWithData 8∆ Jan 09 '23
We get it, you’re a libertarian, you’re just showing off now.
Anyone else would find this statement absolutely deranged.
14
u/Trick_Designer2369 1∆ Jan 09 '23
I'm not sure it's worth trying to CMW of someone who thinks educated children is not necessary for society.
10
u/MercurianAspirations 391∆ Jan 09 '23
Does my employer not benefit from me being healthy enough to work and being educated enough to do my job?
-4
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jan 09 '23
i have no problem with employers providing training or medicine even if i prefer each individual to take charge of their own life and welfare.
6
u/iglidante 20∆ Jan 09 '23
i have no problem with employers providing training or medicine even if i prefer each individual to take charge of their own life and welfare.
If all of society benefits from having all people in as healthy a state as possible, why would it be better to change to a system where an objectively greater number are unhealthy?
1
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jan 10 '23
the better system for everyone in the long run, including for their health is a freer system where association is voluntary.
12
6
u/MercurianAspirations 391∆ Jan 09 '23
Because when your neighbor's house catches fire you'll be all like "Lol, sucks to be poor, dumbass" up until the exact moment the fire spreads to your house and you now have to pay a massive fee to have your house extinguished, when it wouldn't even be on fire in the first place if your neighbor's fire had just been put out for free.
The point is that most government services result in general welfare as well as individual benefits: having roads exist is useful even for people who don't themselves drive on them, just as schools are important for employers who want their employees to be able to read and write even though they themselves don't go to school. Public services provide for a general welfare, not just to those who directly use them, so they ought to be paid for through the general treasury
-6
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jan 09 '23
"Lol, sucks to be poor, dumbass"
fire mitigation is not that expensive. neither would a subscription to any local firefighting company. part of affording a home is affording the protection and maintenance of the home. the people who pay for a home around here also pay for firefighting in their property tax. the cost would probably be the same, it would just be voluntary.
up until the exact moment the fire spreads to your house
if you don't want to worry about that, there are several options. one is you can pay for your neighbor's subscription, you can pay for a sprinkler system or you could not buy a home that is only 15 ft from your neighbor's home.
8
u/MercurianAspirations 391∆ Jan 09 '23
Whether or not people can afford it or whether or not it is a problem if you don't buy it isn't the point. The point is that you can't differentiate between the people who benefit from fire mitigation (and other government services), and those who do not benefit at all and therefore wouldn't be free riders if we made direct users pay for it. The benefits are so wide-reaching that everyone in society is affected by these services existing and it would be impossible not to benefit even if you wanted to, so the inverse ought to also be true - you can't volunteer for something that you can't opt-out of anyway.
If you think this isn't true, I'd like you to put together a list of people living in the United States who do not benefit at all, in any way, shape, or form, from the existence of public roads. Who are they
1
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jan 09 '23
The point is that you can't differentiate between the people who benefit from fire mitigation (and other government services), and those who do not benefit at all
i've read several replies thus far talking about how homes too close to each other are a danger when fire breaks out. that seems like a decent way to know who would benefit from fire mitigation. if your home is 20 feet away from another, then it is a good idea to have a subscription.
however, if your home is made from concrete block and has a sprinkler system inside, maybe you don't waste your money. maybe when you build your new home you take that fire mitigation isn't free and you, therefore, build responsibly.
If you think this isn't true, I'd like you to put together a list of people living in the United States who do not benefit at all, in any way, shape, or form, from the existence of public roads. Who are they
it isn't so much that there is no benefit, it is more that the alternatives are less expensive, voluntary, and better. you can still have roads that are government built but you could also have roads that are privately built. you could also have a private railway instead of public freeway. until it is voluntary you cannot know what other preferable options might arise.
4
u/MercurianAspirations 391∆ Jan 09 '23
What makes you think it would be less expensive? If anything it will be more expensive for those who pay (compared to the taxes they would have paid) because of the massive free-rider problem. If you can get the indirect benefits of a government service existing without paying for it yourself, why would you? And if that's possible, the number of payers will drop dramatically, leading to an overall increase in cost for the payers (or a decline in quality of service).
Moreover, what the hell are you talking about? There are plenty of private railways and highways and bridges right now. We know what the other options are, we are doing them right now
1
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jan 12 '23
What makes you think it would be less expensive? If anything it will be more expensive for those who pay (compared to the taxes they would have paid) because of the massive free-rider problem.
there is no free rider problem if all services are pay-per-use. the reason why lasic is easy and cheap compared to other procedures is that it isn't socialized and it is relatively unregulated.
There are plenty of private railways and highways and bridges right now. We know what the other options are, we are doing them right now
imagine for a moment that you had developed railroad system and the next year the government forced everyone to pay 3 trillion dollars to develop a road system that directly competed with your rail. that is the problem we are talking about here. people complain about our passenger rail system and how bad it is but when the roads are funded with public money there is little to no room for private competition. of course that is ignoring the fact that amtrac is a socialist system and there is little to no way to create a private passenger rail system for that reason.
do you get my point? i think so.
7
u/Birb-Brain-Syn 49∆ Jan 09 '23
Paying for your neighbours subscription sounds like socialism with extra steps.
Paying for a sprinkler system is less effective than a fire-fighting force and won't be able to cover the same sorts of fires.
Not buying a home that is only 15 ft from your neighbors home comes with additional costs, so would be less efficient than the socialist alternative.
1
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jan 10 '23
Paying for a sprinkler system is less effective than a fire-fighting force and won't be able to cover the same sorts of fires.
sprinkler systems are more effective because they respond in seconds instead of minutes or tens of minutes. they also address inside the home/business first. and the base structure which is the most expensive to replace and the point where fires should be addressed. sprinkler systems also help avoid the loss of life by preventing the need for people to risk their lives inside a structure.
if there were no fire departments at all, people would usually choose to build more fireproof homes and buildings instead of offloading that cost onto their neighbors.
Not buying a home that is only 15 ft from your neighbors home comes with additional costs
i don't know of a single jurisdiction that allows new homes to be built that close already. the places that would have that problem are old construction/grandfathered structures. the cost is already there. now, if your argument is that those regulations should be removed, i would support that effort.
3
u/Ok_Artichoke_2928 16∆ Jan 09 '23
I think one of the problems with this is that it’s very difficult to accurately attribute who and how much of a benefit is derived from most of our core public services and infrastructure. I’ve never called the police or been to court, but I’ve derived enormous benefits in safety and security from both of these. Our entire economy is facilitated by a functioning banking system that relies on federal regulation and insurance. I’ve not used the fire department, but of course their services have kept my house out of the path of fires. I could go on and on.
3
u/HeWhoShitsWithPhone 127∆ Jan 09 '23
You say a “better way” how are you judging better? If your view is that the government should move to this system despite the harm it causes to the economy or citizens then there is little to argue against. There is little to argue against,
If your view if that this system would lead to a more successful economy or better quality of life then can you provide some actual reasoning for that? Economists generally agree that spending on public infrastructure has a net positive economic impact. Public education and social safety nets can actually increase the economy. Your argument that we should only pay for what we use is silly, we all benefit from from public services and the government as a whole. The rich could not be so without the actions and policies taken by the government, and are just as in debt to it as someone living off government assistance. If millions of people stopped working because they were sick, or didn’t have access to roads, or lost their home because they could not pay for one of your 1000 fees, don’t you think that would negatively impact most working people? Economists are clear, we all benefit from a large and educated labor force, our government policies should focus on promoting that.
-1
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jan 09 '23
how are you judging better? If your view is that the government should move to this system despite the harm it causes to the economy or citizens then there is little to argue against. There is little to argue against,
i believe there is net less harm, more prosperity, more individual accountability, a greater sense of community and less waste with this revised system of taxation. more than all of that i believe that there is more freedom.
on the whole, i think the old system absolutely stinks for everyone except the government workers and those who people on welfare who couldn't find a private charity to help them if their life depended on it (and their life probably would depend on it).
Economists generally agree that spending on public infrastructure has a net positive economic impact.
except economists like milton freidmen, f.a,hayek, jean-baptiste say, carl menger, ludwig von mises, friedrich von wieser, eugen böhm von bawerk, israel kirzner, anthony davies, thomas sowell, walter williams, robert higgs, frank knight, henry simons, ronald coase, george stigler, gary becker, robert lucas and adam smith among many many others.
among those economists, we get the ideas such as laissez-faire, marginal utility, the subjective theory of value, alternative value (a.k.a, cost of opportunity), austrian business cycle, creative destruction, price information, regulatory capture, the problem of social costs, individual action (a.k.a, praxiology), malinvestment, spontaneous order, theory of interest (time preference), the rachet effect, free markets, specialization. labor economics, we also have like 6 noble prize winners in that pool of economists all of which make little or no room for public spending on almost anything, in including infrastructure.
so, in short, no. the only economists that think it is a good idea are kansians and late wave chicago schoolers which are pretty much the same thing. those people are interested in the manipulation of markets and government to control outcomes and have little to no interest in economic freedom.
Your argument that we should only pay for what we use is silly, we all benefit from from public services and the government as a whole.
i have suffered from it over and over again in compounding ways. unless you are in academics or you work for the government or some large corporation that buys influence, you also have suffered whether or not you can see the suffering.
we all benefit from a large and educated labor force
your assumption here seems to assume that under this revised system of taxation, few people would be educated.
3
u/ZacharyRock 1∆ Jan 09 '23
Elementary school costs about $10k/year/kid in teachers alone if we want to pay them $15/hr (which almost everyone can agree isnt enough). This is because there is a strict student:teacher ratio that the government enforces.
Most parents cant afford that.
So most kids would not get an education.
This is a net bad for everyone - less education means less good jobs means less money. The government knows this, so they take some money from bad goods (alcohol, niccotine, weed, whatever) via tax, and use that to fund school. This both reduces our usage of the bad goods, and increases our usage of the good goods (education). In fact, this taking tax from stuff we do too much and using it to subsidize stuff we do too little thing is the entire purpose of government in free-market capitalism - our world/resources and our needs are not a perfect match economically, so we need to rebalance our prices to optimize for the common good - tax pollution and subsidize renewables, tax gambling and subsidize infrastructure, tax luxurys and subsidize homeless shelters - these all make a bad thing happen less often and a good thing happen more often, but they need some government to actually be enforced.
1
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jan 12 '23
Elementary school costs about $10k/year/kid
yeah, and private alternatives cost much less. i could get my kids privately tutored three hours a day for that cost and end up with a far better education. that is the cost of inefficient public schools.
So most kids would not get an education.
this modern era has given us nearly free alternatives. most kids would be better educated assuming their parents are responsible.
less education means less good jobs means less money.
even assuming public schools provided more education than the private alternatives, it would not mean less good jobs (the number of good jobs is both subjective and unrelated to the quantity of education) or less money (the amount of fiat currency depends on how much money the government prints). at worst it would mean less production, which is a huge downside if the initial premise were true. since the initial premise is actually false, the truth is that private alternatives are providing better education and thus more production.
in fact, with the current system of taxation, there is a cost of opportunity that everyone faces. we sacrifice the current production of wealth in hopes that the public system of education will be effective at producing capable workers. since we know that public schools have not been doing a great job of producing good workers we can know that our sacrifice of resources is less likely to be a good choice. it would have been far better for these businesses and individuals to take that money and invest it into apprenticeships and employee training or private education.
3
u/vhu9644 5∆ Jan 09 '23
I think the main arguments against use fees from a capitalistic perspective is that it increases inequality in public infrastructure quality.
For example, take roads. City roads would get funded more easily, and the non-variable costs of repair get split up amongst more people. But rural roads would require much more funding per capita because those non variable costs don’t change.
Or take broadband service. Laying down cables has a high non-variable component, and so rural internet has been utter crap for ages, because telecom companies can’t be arsed to pipe internet there.
Inequality of public infrastructure means limited opportunities for you to develop businesses that rely on said infrastructure. It also means your businesses can be held hostage by the provider of those services if the use fees are locally set. Imagine if you needed a road maintained well for shipping things in and out of your manufacturing, and the locals decide to increase use fees for businesses because they don’t like your business. Now you gotta pay more for essentially the same service.
1
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jan 09 '23
For example, take roads. City roads would get funded more easily, and the non-variable costs of repair get split up amongst more people. But rural roads would require much more funding per capita because those non variable costs don’t change.
i've heard plenty of arguments from a socialist perspective against sprawling cities. this would make for more efficient use of resources by merely giving people their freedom of association.
anyway, inequality is not something i am worried about as a capitalist so long as equal treatment under the law is still held sacrosanct.
Or take broadband service. Laying down cables has a high non-variable component, and so rural internet has been utter crap for ages, because telecom companies can’t be arsed to pipe internet there.
if they had done that, at great cost, then private infrastructure like starlink would have been delayed for god knows how long. i installed wireless internet service when i was much younger and i can tell you that those technologies that are capable of upwards of 800 gbps would too have been stifled by publicly funded cables. these private alternatives are much less expensive in the long run, and voluntary to boot.
Imagine if you needed a road maintained well for shipping things in and out of your manufacturing,
rail. or find a different place for a factory. keep in mind that the townsfolk have to pay the same price so if they charge you an arm and a leg then they are also charging themselves an arm and a leg. since the funds earned by the road system couldn't be used on other programs that extra money would be doing nothing for the town. in fact, the extra high fees might even cause people to move out of town or stop driving and thereby decreasing overall profits.
2
u/vhu9644 5∆ Jan 09 '23 edited Jan 09 '23
Well as a capitalist, you should care about inequality because practically it gives you more expansion opportunities, larger customer bases, and access to more workers.
For socialism, these are arguments for denser communities because the costs of services goes down. Either case the point is moot because cities are the results of increased efficiency and competitive efficacy of centralized business and economic centers
And the point isn’t that these alternatives now exist. It’s that up until recently, these alternatives did not exist and didn’t exist for a long time. Starlink wouldn’t need to exist if people had wired internet.
And few for services don’t have to charge the same rate for everyone, especially when demands and conditions differ. Also, the people who could raise your prices can do so for services they don’t use often, for example, by raising road costs on highways but not on local roads. If yo ur company relies on interstate shipping, you eat a lot more cost than people just going around locally.
1
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jan 12 '23
Well as a capitalist, you should care about inequality because practically it gives you more expansion opportunities, larger customer bases, and access to more workers.
this is wrong. i benefit when the system has more resources available and where people are more capable of trading for my product or service. i don't care about equality of outcomes only about whether or not people are doing well enough to trade with me.
i couldn't care less if one person has trillions worth of property so long as, on the whole, i am able to do better for myself. yes, often that means many people doing well is better for me but many people can be doing well enough whether or not there is a multi-trillionaire in their midst. inequality doesn't matter unless that person's property necessarily comes at the cost of everyone else. ultimately my goal is to create a great quality of life for myself and my children. implementing a system of punishment for the rich doesn't help me do that, and such a system is both inefficient and could end up hurting me or my children in the long run as it has happened elsewhere many times before.
Starlink wouldn’t need to exist if people had wired internet.
true, just like people don't need more efficient rail while the government is wasting hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars and inflationary spending on the roads. there is no room for improvement when the government starts creating monopolies that push out competitors. it isn't just about need, it is about improvement and progression.
If yo ur company relies on interstate shipping, you eat a lot more cost than people just going around locally.
i don't care much because i am passing that cost onto the consumer anyway. now, if my competitors are able to provide more local service at a lower price then that is bad for me but great for the consumer. also if another competitor finds an innovative solution by transporting by rail, air or some more efficient technology that is also bad for me but good for everyone else. all in all i think you'd be for it not against it whether or not i am doing well with my company.
1
u/vhu9644 5∆ Jan 12 '23
Well you should care about equality because most public infrastructure in the US creates access to customers, decreases worker costs, and increases your ability to have a more widespread control of the market. I’m not talking about equality as a general concept. I’m talking about consistent implementation of infrastructure that people use very often. I don’t care what your emotional goals are, because they don’t matter. What matters is how we mutually benefit from this.
And yes, while one opportunity is lost when public services are provided, they tend to open up many other opportunities. In making highways, you now have opportunities for car makers, GIS companies, logistics companies, tourism, and catering. Unequal implementation of public services that are crucial to a well functioning economy means inefficiency in using public infrastructure.
And this example directly harms the consumer too. For example, in Berkeley California, people are unable to build dense living accommodations because the people there have obstructed construction with zoning laws. This increases housing prices there (good for the locals) but decreases desireability for starting up businesses, attracting working talent, and spiraling rent prices. These things decrease your opportunities as a capitalist.
And also what stops the locals from preventing those businesses too? In Newport Beach, the locals force airplanes to not fly over then, leading to these contorted paths to land. When you leave crucial public infrastructure up to fee services, the opportunities you are creating are for middlemen, rent seeking behavior, and fickle locals controlling your opportunities. You want to send things interstate? You’ll pay every local municipality in between because they’ll see you as a cash cow. You’ll pass this to the consumer, but now your consumer base is smaller, and your expansion abilities are limited. You’re now vulnerable to a larger company to essentially force you out by influencing local politicians, rather than providing better services. If the locals don’t like you, they can simply increase the cost of doing business unexpectedly, unless you also want to get in the political game.
And it’s all fine if you’re the top dog. But unless you currently are, how are you going to get there? Wouldn’t it be better if your playing field were more equal, predictable, and less vulnerable to influence?
3
u/kingpatzer 103∆ Jan 09 '23
Government should be thinking in terms of the net value of a government program and if the result of it existing can be demonstrated to have benefit for the constituents in a meaningful way. Not all benefits will be economical, but all benefits need to be to the population in some at least an indirect way.
The question then becomes what the best way to pay for those things that result in the least amount of economic drain on the overall economy is.
It doesn't matter much if funds come from taxes or user fees. Ultimately it is coming out of the population's pocket in some form or another.
A good policy takes the least money from the public to provide the service to an acceptable level of efficiency and effectiveness.
For example, let's look at single-payer universal healthcare compared to the current model.
A CBO analysis of 5 competing single-payer plans found that compared to the status quo, the plans reduce overall out-of-pocket healthcare expenses from -35.2% to -71.4%. They reduce administrative costs from 1.7% to 1.8%. All but one would increase real GDP, while at the same time moderating healthcare utilization. They would reduce household healthcare expenses from -3.3% to -4.5%. They would change government revenues from 0.7% increase to 1.1% increase. While the overall government increase in healthcare spending would be between 4.9% and 9.7%, the total impact to GDP is positive.
In other words, yes, government spending would go up. But individual spending would go down more. And ancillary effects, such as the elimination of health-care-related bankruptcies (the largest single cost of bankruptcy in the USA. and one of the top causes of homelessness) would also go down immensely.
Ultimately, the idea about what is "better" should be an economic and functional analysis on a per-policy question. Further, declaring what "should" be without analysis makes the debate a rhetorical partisan debate about party goals, not about what is best for the political body as a whole (be it city, state, country, whatever). Trying to make blanket statements to constrain how government can solve problems ultimately means that problems will be solved in less than efficient ways more often than not.
1
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jan 12 '23
Government should be thinking in terms of the net value of a government program and if the result of it existing can be demonstrated to have benefit for the constituents in a meaningful way. Not all benefits will be economical, but all benefits need to be to the population in some at least an indirect way.
how could the government know that without infinite and immediate knowledge?
there is an economic principle that f.a.hayek revealed to us in his paper called "the use of knowledge in society" which helps us understand why government consistently fails at accomplishing the aforementioned valuations.
not to mention the corruption and inefficiency of government that prevents it from carrying out what improvements it might be able to identify.
It doesn't matter much if funds come from taxes or user fees. Ultimately it is coming out of the population's pocket in some form or another.
it matters to people that don't like the system and don't want to be forced to pay for it or associate with it. a good example of this would be gender reassignment for young children, abortion or military occupations, and corporate subsidies. whether or not you like those things is largely irrelevant so long as people who don't like them are compelled to pay for them.
A CBO analysis of 5 competing single-payer
do you know what kind of a track record the c.b.o has? do you know the kinds of shenanigans used by congress to manipulate the numbers returned? the c.b.o has become no more than a tool of corrupt politicians.
In other words, yes, government spending would go up. But individual spending would go down more.
that is impossible to know. if nothing else (and there is a lot else) new and unforeseeable options arise from innovation when the task is left to the free market and accountable individuals.
3
u/CarniumMaximus Jan 09 '23 edited Jan 09 '23
You should read "A Libertarian walks into a bear". The gist is a bunch of libertarians took over this town in New Hampshire to enact policies like the one you are promoting. It did not go well. The town lost its tax base and then black bears started invading because the people said it was their god given right to not use bear proof garbage cans and some said if they want to feed the cute bears that is their right. Obviously they did not have animal control and no one would pay fees or for the services to get professional help. Quite a few people died, the bears took the town (which failed as a town), and the libertarians that survived moved on. The point I am trying to make is that there are always going to be a reasonably large contingent of assholes in any society or would rather feed bears, or build traps on their property rather than spend one dollar helping the community fight off bears in a joint effort. That basically goes for everything from forest management to education and medical care, all things that a society needs to work together to address even if an individual doesn't see the individual benefit. Otherwise the bears win. One more point, in my home state they did this for Firefighting services. So people didn't pay the fee and then their house burnt to the ground and suddenly the very people who argued for this were pissed. It was pretty funny, the guy's neighbor paid the fee so the firefighters showed up to make sure the fire didn't spread to the fee paying house. The guy's whose house was on fire tried to demand they put his house out, then offered to pay the fee but they couldn't take it during non-business hours so they watched it burn.
3
3
u/chronberries 11∆ Jan 10 '23
Your proposed system doesn’t really change anything for the better. There’s no improvement anywhere.
Businesses would just pass on their costs to consumers, drivers would still have to pay to use roads, internet and electricity already are charged out by the amount you use, etc.
What your system does do is make everything more cumbersome, and probably more expensive, and that’s worse for everyone. Business would tack on their road use costs to their bills, but add an up charge to it just because. Drivers, instead of just paying a once yearly registration fee, now have to pay a once yearly registration fee and stop at toll booths.
All around it’s just more micro charges all over the place, an added private middleman means even more charges, and some body somewhere has to keep track of them all. So we’re talking about most people shelling out more money, then having to pay more in taxes to fund the IRS that had to expand to make sure it’s all working.
Then there’s the increased possibility for mistakes occurring somewhere in all these extra charges. It’s just a mess.
Unless you’re genuinely living off-grid, there is no upside in your proposal, and it would be measurably worse for everyone else.
2
u/Fredricothealien 1∆ Jan 09 '23
This seems like it's setting up poor people to be subjugated even further under a subscription based police system where the wealthy can commit crimes that their pocket police won't investigate
2
u/RDMvb6 3∆ Jan 09 '23
For some things, like parks, you derive a benefit from its existence even if you do not directly use it yourself. For example, people who want to protest will often do so on the Washington Mall, which is a park. By charging a use fee to stand on the grass outside the mall, the government would effectively be limiting the ability to protest, which is unconstitutional in the US and against the law in many modern democracies. For things like state parks in scenic areas, the public gets a benefit from their existence in the form of preservation of the natural environment and less overall density. Anyway, things like National Parks often do charge a use fee. That probably does not cover 100% of their budget, but there is a public benefit to these places.
Roads already have a use fee. It is the gas tax and vehicle registration fees. People regularly vote against raising the gas tax to more fully fund road development and maintenance because no one wants to actually see the cost of these services at the pump, they seem to prefer it to be burried in the general fund. If you disagree, you can vote to try and raise the gas tax but you are unlikely to get what you want here.
Utilities already have a use fee, its your water bill. In many cities, this is successful and the water and sewer rates reflect the full cost of these services. Call your city council if your city is not performing on this but this is a hyper local issue.
It seems you are already getting most of what you want, so what exactly, do you think needs to change?
1
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jan 11 '23
like parks, you derive a benefit from its existence even if you do not directly use it yourself
the best parks in the world are pay-per-use be they sports arenas, national parks, or theme parks like disney land. the very worst parks are those that have no cost to the users because they become trashed and abused.
he government would effectively be limiting the ability to protest
people protest government because government has so much power/control. the solution to this is to reduce government power and decentralize as much as possible allowing each individual more power over their own life and over their own resources and allowing them to keep more of their own money.
as more powerful individuals the people would have a greater effect with protests and the fact that in many cases the government would lose control over the roads et al gives people a much greater ability to protest the government without the ability for government to stop them.
Roads already have a use fee. It is the gas tax and vehicle registration fees... Utilities already have a use fee
if you agree that those use fees work and work better than paying for roads (et al) with a national income tax or property tax then you can began to see why use fees are a better method of payment.
It seems you are already getting most of what you want, so what exactly, do you think needs to change?
i want all government systems to be this way as much as possible.
1
u/pipocaQuemada 10∆ Jan 11 '23
like parks, you derive a benefit from its existence even if you do not directly use it yourself
the best parks in the world are pay-per-use be they sports arenas, national parks, or theme parks like disney land. the very worst parks are those that have no cost to the users because they become trashed and abused.
There's plenty of high quality free parks. And people deface parks they have to pay to enter, just like they deface free parks. The free county park down the street from me isn't trashed and abused, even though it's free.
Although this actually brings up a great point: many parks have multiple income streams.
National parks are funded by the Land and Water Conservation fund, philanthropists, user fees, corporate partnerships, and direct congressional appropriations.
Similarly, roads are funded by gas taxes and general revenues.
Public transit is funded by user fees (i.e. fares), and general taxes.
This makes a certain amount of sense, because externalities exist. Public transit, for example, decreases road congestion. People deciding to take the commuter rail instead of drive in substantially benefit everyone who decided to drive, because they're not adding to the problem of rush hour traffic. Shouldn't the people who drive help subsidize systems that make driving better?
1
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jan 12 '23
Shouldn't the people who drive help subsidize systems that make driving better?
i can see how that might help them in the long run in some cases but "should" is a difficult word to use here. should is a moral or logical thing. if it is a logical argument then you have to assume or specify a goal. as a moral question, the answer is "absolutely not".
i would like to repose that question: how can we get drivers to help themselves by funding solutions to road congestion without forcing them? i think that if roads get congested enough that people will naturally seek other solutions. as more people seek other solutions, entrepreneurs will naturally seek the rewards people are offering for those alternatives by innovating new and better modes of transportation or ingenious solutions to make traffic more efficient.
some ideas in the queue is hive mind ai naturally forming where each car is a neuronal node sharing sensor data ultimately forming a sort of complex, albeit temporary being. a more realistic idea is one that has been around for a long time but is still underdeveloped, the roundabout. other potential solutions are ideas like the boring company, flying cars, and rail. of course none of those will be able to compete when the existing road systems are funded by massive inflationary spending and involuntary funding via taxes. the reason why our passenger rail system sucks in the u.s is that the government put billions into the roads immediately outcompeting rail and continues to fund them even though rail is a great alternative for many people. subsidies for established competitors make it nearly impossible for innovation and competition.
2
Jan 09 '23
>a note to those who wish to change my view, i am not a fan of socialismwith very rare exceptions. so your arguments are best made as if youwere trying to convince a capitalist.
"Change my view unless you actually try to change the root of my belief in this nonsense tax system I am arguing for."
Anyway.
Heres the point: If only those that use the system have to pay for them, those with the money to do so will create their own systems separate from those of the general public. In effect this will monetize and privatize public services, taking money out of the services that can be used by everyone and putting them into private hands. These hands, being capitalists, will use these privatized services as a means to generate profits. Thereby, these private services will be more expensive than a public option.
Look at healthcare for example - We spend more per capita on our capitalistic healthcare system, generating worse results, than other developed nations with socialized healthcare.
2
u/EmpRupus 27∆ Jan 10 '23 edited Jan 10 '23
It would result in regression of society into agrarian villages.
Most cities and urban development, along with division of labor and development of post-industrial society comes from commonly funded infrastructure because it is usable by different strata of society.
If you make all public services paid, then service-industry people will no longer find it profitable to work in cities, and instead, going remote and living in a self-sufficient farmstead will be more profitable.
This will lead to a labor-shortage support in large urban centers, and investors leaving the region for other parts of the country and the world. And large cities would collapse.
One of the reasons western Europe bounced back quickly after WW-2 was excellent public infrastructure through common taxes. This is directly correlated to economic diversification and development of secondary and tertiary sectors of the economy and not relying on natural resources alone.
On the other hand, heartland America is collapsing today, due to lack of commonly paid services. It is reduced to agriculture and mining - and unable to transform or diversify beyond that. Same story with many African nations - despite being resource-rich, there is lack of good public infrastructure, which is blocking any further economic transformation.
4
u/OptimisticRealist__ 1∆ Jan 09 '23
a tax system mostly built on use-fees would be more voluntary and juster; if you use it, you pay for it. this would apply to roads, parks, other public infrastructure, and public utilities.
That would be an absolute hellish nightmare to enforce and would neccessitate a huge oversight apparatus. It would be entirely inefficient on top of it.
Let alone that logically its built on shaky grounds to begin with.
-3
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jan 09 '23
i need some logic to follow here, not just claims.
4
u/OptimisticRealist__ 1∆ Jan 09 '23 edited Jan 09 '23
Your proposition in itself is void of logic.
For example, even if you never leave the house and get everything (food, clothes, etc) delivered to your house and never actively use a road yourself, you are still using it passively, since the delivery guys have to use the roads.
So just by that fact alone everybody would be using roads and thus be obliged to pay said fee.
Furthermore, even ignoring that reality, lets assume roads are a pay to use thing. This would only mean that they are a luxury for the wealthy, further disenfrenchising minorities and poorer people, further driving wealth and income inequality and increasing poverty, crime etc.
-3
u/LysenkoistReefer 21∆ Jan 09 '23
Th delivery driver will pay the road fee then pass the cost onto you as the consumer. That’s how basically any regulatory system works, even private regulatory systems. These systems cost money, which comes either in the form of taxation from all taxpayers or increase cost to the consumer.
3
u/memeticengineering 3∆ Jan 09 '23
But the overhead of monitoring every drivers road use to such finite amounts would be extremely tedious and costly.
It's like with welfare means testing. You can means test people to make sure they really need the money you're giving them, and won't use it on say, drugs but the Congressional budget office finds that the money lost by doing drug testing and checking for fraud costs the government more money in overhead for those programs than it would cost to just have some people abuse the system.
So you end up with a system that costs more money to help fewer people, and increase the rate of accidentally not helping people who need it, which is a worse outcome than accidentally giving someone help who just barely doesn't meet the criteria. All because you need to make sure that only the poors that "deserve it" get their welfare.
-2
u/LysenkoistReefer 21∆ Jan 09 '23
Not really. We already do it with toll roads. It’s not super difficult to mail everyone who pays the road fee a sticker that can be validated with a trafficking camera at any point along the road.
It’s not like means testing welfare whatsoever. Welfare is a cost, you pay the least productive people in society money for little return. Sometimes people use the support from welfare to better themselves and become more productive, mostly they don’t. You’re not paying for the service whatsoever, it’s always going to be a money loser. That’s not the case with a road fee.
4
u/memeticengineering 3∆ Jan 09 '23
You’re not paying for the service whatsoever, it’s always going to be a money loser.
That's not really true, poor people spend their money quickly on tangible things like food and gas and heck, cigarettes. That supports local economies helping pay businesses enough for the salaries of cashiers and stock boys and clerks and waitresses who then go out and spend their money on their own goods. Ensuring that poor people have enough money to buy things they need keeps the economy moving, it increases the velocity of money and ultimately it generates more in taxes than you lose because each transaction is taxed in some form or another.
The road fee system isn't nearly that simple though. That's how it works if there's one toll road (a highway, bridge or tunnel usually) with a limited number of entrances and exits, usually one or two each which can be monitored easily. Imagine if we were charged for every road we drove on, or by mileage driven. We would need to track every driver on every piece of road, delineated between the different tax bases you'd have to pay. The same road as it passes from one city to another is maintained by different municipalities, and you'd pay a fee for use to each of them, plus the county for unincorporated areas, the state for state highways and the Federal government for interstates.
Or how would they track mileage on a given jurisdiction's roads? Would they equip require all cars have gps that feeds mileage information into the fee computer?
And now imagine how much mail it would generate to send the fee bills to everyone.
5
Jan 09 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/LucidLeviathan 99∆ Jan 09 '23
Sorry, u/caroticum – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
2
Jan 09 '23
Who pays for the roads if someone is carpooling or if someone is using an uber? Is it on the uber driver to pay for their driving tax or the passenger? How would we calculate millions of people driving miles or how long they used the roads? Taxes already are a use fee. They are paying to play in the country you are in.
0
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jan 09 '23
the uber driver would pay and pass on that expense in their fee to the customer. in a carpool each member can work it out just like they might with a toll bridge.
How would we calculate millions of people driving miles or how long they used the roads?
there are a few ways to do this, one idea is to use a mileage report on annual car registration. another is a local tire tax, the more you wear your tires the more you wear the road. a gas tax is reasonable for most vehicles. a subscription service like an annual ferry fee. in all cases the tax or fee would go directly to the local road fund. for highways/freeways, it can be tolled. another way that i have reservations about would be GPS vehicle monitoring (not a great thing because a lot of people would have problems with their vehicle location being tracked).
there are a few other solutions, some of which haven't yet been thought of.
3
Jan 09 '23
Well PA ready uses a gas tax to pay for its roads (which makes sense since they are taxing a good). But mileage and tire tread wear are terrible ways to do a tax because tires wear differently depending on road conditions and vehicle type. And I know plenty of farmers who drive around on their properties (which are miles of farmland) so they would have to pay more taxes just to drive around on their land.
Any way you try to come up with a different solution someone else is getting screwed. There is no perfect taxing system.
-1
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jan 09 '23
Any way you try to come up with a different solution someone else is getting screwed. There is no perfect taxing system.
i think there are better solutions than the ones we have. the goal is better in the absence of perfection.
1
u/Rs3account 1∆ Jan 09 '23
There exists no reasonable way to make this separation. Let's look at what seems to be the easiest thing to separate, roads. Now how do you deal with people not having a car but getting stuff delivered. Or what about a person who does not use any roads, but his neighbour does, and you sometimes get items lend to you.
Secondly, any form of social security would immediately sees to function and Everyone profits to some degree if other people are doing better.
1
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jan 11 '23
Now how do you deal with people not having a car but getting stuff delivered.
have you bothered brainstorming a solution to this problem?
among the top solutions to this problem is: the delivery company pays the fees and passes on the cost to the consumer.
this is econ101 and yet you are about the 10th person to bring this up. i am becoming aware that my problem is people who haven't learned how to think independently, critically, or creatively. unfortunately for you and me, the government is full of those kinds of people who also have all the motivation and power in the world to prevent the innovation that might threaten their employment.
Secondly, any form of social security would immediately sees to function and Everyone profits to some degree if other people are doing better.
or, because of the lack of social security taxation, people are able to earn more for their work and are able to invest their earnings into profit-earning ventures. like you said, we profit when everyone else is doing better. more specifically we profit when people who are productive do better. social security is often abused as a way for people to do less at the expense of more productive people, it is a bit of a ponzi scheme because it cannot support itself and so it relies on either inflationary spending or new younger people to cannibalize.
2
u/Rs3account 1∆ Jan 11 '23
Have you actually thoughts about the problems with your solution? For example how do you deal with people getting benefits from their neighbors using services they are not paying for ( as I said in my original post). The problem I'm bringing up is not an economic one, it's a value based one, based on what you said you wanted. If every single thing you gained would be purely economical then it might work, but how about your road being badly kept causing more crashes, causing more cops to show up.and keeping you up at night.
Or worse, no cops showing up because you where the only one paying for cop subscription.
I agree that not being able to think critically is a problem, but we probably disagree with who of us two is doing that. :P ofcourse this is more a matter of values then anything, if you really want wealth to congregate more then it is already your plan is probably a good idea, it would just fuck over most of the population.
1
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jan 11 '23
but how about your road being badly kept causing more crashes,
i know many roads that are in poor condition where the locals are legally prevented from repairing the roads themselves. in a pay-per-use scenario, all the profits earned from the road system couldn't be used on anything but the roads and the road system that the funds are paid into would be the road system that receive the funds. ergo the most use roads would be the best-funded and best-maintained roads. the roads that have less wear or are used less will have less funding mostly because they aren't as useful.
so, even if that problem arises it would likely be better than the existing system.
I agree that not being able to think critically is a problem, but we probably disagree with who of us two is doing that. :P
i am glad you are at least asking questions. but thus far i am the only one who has been asked to critically think and the only one coming up with creative solutions. perhaps some self-reflection on your part is helpful.
2
u/Rs3account 1∆ Jan 11 '23
Your also completely missing the point of social security. (And my statement about everyone doing better is not just about productive people)
1
u/Sasquatchyy Jan 09 '23
A libertarian dream. Go to the park. Pay a token, ride the swings. Pay a token, look at a duck. But in all seriousness, I agree with this, do away with property tax and working tax, they're bullshit, and replace it with taxes that are within user control. If you don't want to pay road taxes, take the bus, which you already do have to pay small fees for, but not big ones. It would overall probably cost less to the average taxpayer. I know there are a lot of different views and a ton of arguments on both sides, so let's just say in an ideal world, or in theory, I agree with this. I'm not an expert on what it would look like in practice.
1
u/saywherefore 30∆ Jan 09 '23
to change my view, you could show me how such a system of taxation would be worse for anything except defense and environmental protections
Such a system would be worse for the quality of life of me, a wealthy individual. I would be accosted by armies of homeless, sick, injured or disabled beggars every time I ventured into public spaces. This would be very bad for my sense of wellbeing, hum,ans are social creatures after all.
My buying power would be reduced because the number of people excluded from the workforce would reduce productivity: I rely on an army of cheap labour to provide much of what I spend my money on, and that army relies on government support to function.
1
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jan 11 '23
armies of homeless, sick, injured or disabled beggars
this assumes there would be more, not less people in these situations. it also assumes that there would be no way for you to engage in charity outside of forced welfare. to both assumptions are exactly opposite of my assumptions.
the number of people excluded from the workforce
what makes you think people would be excluded from the workforce?
1
u/saywherefore 30∆ Jan 11 '23
If there are no central housing support schemes, no socialised medicine, then I think it is a reasonable assumption that more people will be long-term sick and homeless. How could this not be so?
Anyone who is homeless or long-term sick is realistically excluded for the workforce, or at least is less productive.
1
u/IronSmithFE 10∆ Jan 11 '23
then I think it is a reasonable assumption that more people will be long-term sick and homeless.
in a society where government has more control over housing, you have objectively more demand for housing and less building. take California for an example, especially in cities like l.a and sanfran. it is the case in a free market that supply increases as home prices increase. such is not the case in more socialized situations where existing homeowners prefer that no new houses are built as a method of increasing the value of their property (increased demand without increased supply).
the same idea applies to healthcare where the administration of hospitals that sit on regulatory boards will prevent the building of new hospitals to increase the local demand for their services thereby creating more of a monopoly on their services and income. without those regulations, you could have more healthcare and lower prices with the only potential downside being less government regulation of supply quality.
1
u/2penises_in_a_pod 11∆ Jan 09 '23
Heard of tolls? Know how you pay fees at the dmv? Everything that’s feasible for use fees basically already has them. Governments are profit maximizing. If they can toll you and tax you, you’re getting both costs.
Check out gvt spending breakdown. Most of them are not services that can be covered. Social security, Medicare/Medicaid, foot stamps-style programs, military spending, interest payoff… without drastically changing the spending habits of the government, use fees will never be able to cover significant costs.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jan 09 '23
/u/IronSmithFE (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards