Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

theCatch_man t1_ixefusf wrote

Reply to comment by pahnzoh in I'm European, how to move to New Hampshire? by alexkourtis

Again, if I don’t use the highways should I not pay taxes for infrastructure? If I never see a penny of social security should I not pay any income tax? This logic just doesn’t make sense, we can’t just say that since we don’t use something we shouldn’t pay for it.

What about the police or fire departments? My house has never set fire and I’ve never been robbed, but we can’t just tax people who use those services!

1

pahnzoh t1_ixehf6u wrote

It is hard to come up with a perfect ethical solution when we are born into social systems that have relied on debt financing, political corruption, extortion, taxation, forced governance, and the like.

I don't see any problem with use-based payments for infrastructure. We already have them, they're call tolls. It's just a different way of funding things.

All of these services can be performed by the private market by paying for them. I understand that's not the way we've done it, but you can certainly do it without the government middle man.

It's completely logical, you just haven't heard of it because it's not taught in schools or discussed in media.

1

theCatch_man t1_ixejbvn wrote

I can definitely see where you are coming from better now. It makes sense, but I still don’t think that’s the right way to view these issues.

I think use-based systems won’t work unless there’s a clear way to tax people fairly. For consideration, think if a billionaire pays $0.50 for a toll versus someone getting paid 7.50/hour. The billionaires’ tax burden is significantly less for that toll than the min. wage worker.

I also don’t think the private market should be a way to pay for roads, infrastructure, and education. I think time and time again, when you let capitalism run rampant, it hurts the working and middle class while benefiting a fraction of the wealthiest people. If all schools were private and looking to increase profits, I don’t understand how that could benefit the common person. I think that may lead to more corruption than in the government. The free market idea needs to be very well regulated, and the government should take on costs that won’t be explicitly profitable (schools, roads, etc) but are either a necessity or provide economic value down the road.

As a side note, I have no idea what “forced governance” you mean.

1