3 ms·

But they do not benefit everyone equally. Everyone benefits from inexpensive food; should the government make food tax-funded? If I mainly eat lentils, I would

But they do not benefit everyone equally. Everyone benefits from inexpensive food; should the government make food tax-funded? If I mainly eat lentils, I would prefer to pay for what I use. If I eat lots of beef steak, I would be very happy to have others subsidise me. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2016/9/2/a-thousand-hidden-subsidies https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2016/9/2/a-thousand-hidd... 1. The cost of a dead-end residential street mainly benefits the people that live there. Everybody else just pays for it. 2. A truck drives down the road hauling cases of beer. Part of the cost of this trip is paid for via general funds. Everybody contributes a small $X to the truck's journey. Person A drinks a case of beer, so they get 1 case of beer per $X. Person B doesn't drink beer, so they get nothing for their $X. 3. Person A commutes by car to their job every week day on Highway H. Person B walks to work and never drives. Both people pay $X for Highway H, but only one of them uses it directly. These costs are so diffused that people assume taxation is a fair way to slice it up. The real fair way: 1. The people that live on the dead-end street pay for the dead-end street. 2. The cost of the truck's journey gets factored into the price of the beer. Person A will have to pay the inclusive price to buy a case of beer. Person B pays nothing, giving them $X back to spend elsewhere. 3. Person A will have to pay to drive on Highway H. Person B saves $X. Person A thinks maybe it is smarter to not drive so much.

bduerst 8y ago
>Everyone benefits from inexpensive food; should the government make food tax-funded? Yes, and they do. What do you think agricultural tax-subsidies are? Also the strawman problems you pose just to solve are a bit absurd, for reasons that I mentioned before about the nature of regional monopolies, and the fact that road costs are already covered at different levels of the government.
- oftenwrong 8y ago
  >What do you think agricultural tax-subsidies are? A good example of failed policy. >Also the strawman problems you pose just to solve are a bit absurd, for reasons that I mentioned before about the nature of regional monopolies, and the fact that road costs are already covered at different levels of the government. Not "strawmen problems" - concrete examples of mismatched cost and use, which you do not address.
crooked-v 8y ago
> Person A commutes by car to their job every week day on Highway H. Person B walks to work and never drives. Both people pay $X for Highway H, but only one of them uses it directly. You seem to have completely forgotten about second-order effects. Person B still benefits tremendously from the logistical effects of Highway H on shipping, social mobility, government force projection capability (the original reason for the Interstate Highway System in the US), and many other factors.
- oftenwrong 8y ago
  Those second-order effects can still exist when the cost-of-use is covered directly.

bduerst 8y ago

>Everyone benefits from inexpensive food; should the government make food tax-funded? Yes, and they do. What do you think agricultural tax-subsidies are? Also the strawman problems you pose just to solve are a bit absurd, for reasons that I mentioned before about the nature of regional monopolies, and the fact that road costs are already covered at different levels of the government.

oftenwrong 8y ago
>What do you think agricultural tax-subsidies are? A good example of failed policy. >Also the strawman problems you pose just to solve are a bit absurd, for reasons that I mentioned before about the nature of regional monopolies, and the fact that road costs are already covered at different levels of the government. Not "strawmen problems" - concrete examples of mismatched cost and use, which you do not address.

crooked-v 8y ago

> Person A commutes by car to their job every week day on Highway H. Person B walks to work and never drives. Both people pay $X for Highway H, but only one of them uses it directly. You seem to have completely forgotten about second-order effects. Person B still benefits tremendously from the logistical effects of Highway H on shipping, social mobility, government force projection capability (the original reason for the Interstate Highway System in the US), and many other factors.

oftenwrong 8y ago
Those second-order effects can still exist when the cost-of-use is covered directly.