The thing with using user fees and not general taxes, is it is not proportional.
If you were to charge road tolls, and lower taxes, it would benefit the wealthy and harm the poor.
Taxes are a % of income, so if you lower taxes, wealthy people get to save more $$$ than lower class people. Then it will turn out that the $$$ that the rich get back will
more than pay for their road use (they'll have money from their savings left over after spending it on road tolls) and the poor will
not get enough $$$ rebates to cover their toll expenses. In the end the poor will be more poor.
So yes, it is a redistribution of wealth. But it's more than that. It's not taking money and giving it to the poor. It is taking money from the people who are fortunate, and use the wealth and power of the people to get that money, then spend it on something we all use. We all benefit from roads, directly or indirectly, everything we do, we can do because of roads.
It's the same with the parking tax. 35% tax on $200 a month for parking isn't that much of a deal to someone who can afford it. But it harms the people who can't afford it, but need to do it. High taxes and tolls on road use are just social engineering exercises that turn the freedom of driving into a pastime for the privileged, and force those who aren't into paying more than they can afford or forcing them to change their established lifestyle (essentially robbing freewill in the name of environmentalism).
Quote:
Consider just giving people cash (tax refunds, lower taxes on the poor and middle class, whatever) and letting them decide what to do with it.
Seriously, if you're barely scraping by and might not be able to pay rent, what would you prefer?
1) Road access or a bus pass paid for by the state
2) An equivalent amount of cash to spend on whatever you see fit: food, rent, tuition, or maybe even road access
If you actually want to help people you'll choose 2.
|
No, I wouldn't chose 2. I'm not saying people wouldn't know what to do with their own money. I believe that most people are smart enough to spend money appropriately.
I'm saying that people in need, if they were taxed 0% and had to pay user fees, would be worse off than they are now and paying tax.
Then where do we draw the line?
- Pay for medical services you can afford?
- Full tuition for K-12 education?
- Optional sewage hookup and garbage collection (you all know that if you had to pay a direct fee for garbage pickup you would all walk down to the nearest empty lot and throw your trash in there)?
- Security fees if you want the police to offer you assitance (and have your family pay the fees and court costs if they want your murder solved, hey, maybe it's not a big deal to them and they can save a few bucks)?
That's a bit sarcastic, but comeon, how are roads, a major pillar of our economy and society, different than any of the other services provided by the government I mentioned?
The wealthy can afford to pay for what they need in life. That's why they are wealthy. They can even amass wealth after paying taxes. So without taxes they could pay any userfee for any of the things I listed and still accumulate wealth. That's why tax is a %, and not a flat fee.
But a person with a limited income isn't going to feel a tax rebate. Sure, they can probably buy a warm coat or something, but it would not be enough to pay for the user fees they would need to pay for services they require.
We have been lowering taxes and decreasing services (especially in the United States) and the gap between the wealthy and the poor is getting wider and wider. It's because we are making the poor pay for the privilege of generating the wealth for the rich.
And believe me, I'm no communist, there just needs to be proper balance, and shifting the burden of paying for our economy onto the backs of the poor is not balance, it's theft.
Prev
Linear Mode
