Thread: what government services are you happy to receive? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026090
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 
It seems odd to me how many people think that if they don't receive poverty-related services, they don't benefit from government services.

What services do you receive from the government? Which are you especially happy to have available? If the government didn't provide it, would you be able to purchase it for yourself privately?

I'll start:

I went to government-funded schools from first grade through my master's degree. I got a good education, and I would never have been able to pay for it myself.

I use the public library. I own a lot of books, but I could never own every book I could ever want to read. Through the library, I can get any book, any music. It's amazing.

I stay in a cabin in the national forests for a few days every summer. It's a treasure.

We have an underground oil tank for our furnace. We have an insurance policy through the state that will pay for the cleanup if it ever leaks. That kind of insurance isn't available privately at any cost. We haven't ever used this insurance, but having it provides a great deal of peace of mind.

I buy prescription medications that are approved by and monitored by the FDA.

What about you?
 
Posted by chive (# 208) on :
 
I'm a civil servant so fundamentally everything I have and own comes from the government. Apart from that I love the NHS and for various reasons am a big user of their services. I even get free prescriptions. I have access to 24/7 mental health care which means if I phone in a crisis I will have people round at my house looking after me at 3 in the morning if required. Even on Christmas morning (which has happened.)

I receive Disability Living Allowance and that money allows me to pay for therapy (the only medical service I have to pay for) and give petrol money to my friend who goes with me to places I'm too anxious to go myself.

I have good roads and good road lighting.

I know (or hope with the current pile of shites in power) that their is a safety net available to me if my health means I can no longer work.

I got free education up to masters degree level and I even got a grant that almost covered my annual rent.

I have police, ambulance, coastguard and fire brigade available if I require them.

I don't understand why people want smaller government. Although I disagree with some government policy, particularly things like trident, I am glad I pay tax and help pay for the things that I and everyone else use.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
In term of both local and national governments, I benefit or have benefitted in the past from the following:

Roads, health, drainage*, sanitation*, water supply*, gas*, electricity supply*, education, libraries, child benefit and children's education, law enforcement (police and courts), land registration (so I can prove I own my home)...as starters for ten.

"But, apart from all that, what have the Romans ever done for us?"

* Now privatised, but were public utilities in my childhood.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
Let's see what I use that I can think of. Bet there are more that I don't.

I definitely couldn't have afforded education without the free money and interest-free money I got for college.

Arranging unemployment insurance that I could collect when I needed it.

Public library! Oh man do I love our libraries!

While I wish the processing plants (for food) were better monitored, I am glad they are monitored at all.

Roads and transportation. And transportation is a huge one in a city where the train system does not break even, but is absolutely necessary to many of us.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
Is there a topic for debate here?

--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
'Nanny state'/ 'big' government 'interference' in our lives? What do we pay our taxes for? That kind of thing I guess...
 
Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :
 
I think the debate might kick off if there's a service or benefit which someone might be receiving which they would rather not.

I might have stated job seekers' allowance, which I received for several months last year while I was out of work. Though my reason for not wanting to receive it was because I wanted a job, not because I think subsidising the living costs of those out of work is a bad thing.
 
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Is there a topic for debate here?
Over on the "how rich is rich" thread, someone said that the rich consume more government services than the poor, and that statement was challenged. The rich, after all, don't need government-provided healthcare or education. So I want to talk about what government services folks who aren't poor receive.

I think it's important to understand what the government pays for, for all of us. Taxes are not a means of redistributing wealth from hardworking, industrious rich folks to folks who are too lazy to work. I'm asserting that we all, every single one of us, benefits from government services, both directly and indirectly.

I'd be more than happy for someone to jump in and explain how they don't receive any services from the government, since there are apparently folks around here who believe that. In the mean time, the argument that we all do receive such benefits is being built.
 
Posted by Uriel (# 2248) on :
 
Aside from the services I directly use (education for my kids, hospitals when sick, publicly maintained roads I drive on, etc.) I indirectly use a huge amount that comes from public services. When I go into a shop the person who I deal with is literate and numerate because of public education, and often healthy because of the NHS. That my house is not plagued by crime is due to the police, probation and judicial systems. And my business is only possible because I have a healthy, literate market to trade with.

So when it is said that the rich don't use as much public services as the poor, I would disagree, in that it is only looking at the services directly accessed. The rich are only able to make the financial gains that they do because of the publicly funded infrastructure and conditions that permit trade and wealth creation, such as roads, a healthy and educated workforce and market, strong action on crime, national defence, etc. etc. Most of this is taken for granted, but when you look at how many companies want to trade in the UK compared with Somalia, you suddenly realise that you need a decent sized (and adequately funded) state to facilitate wealth creation.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
I'd be more than happy for someone to jump in and explain how they don't receive any services from the government, since there are apparently folks around here who believe that. In the mean time, the argument that we all do receive such benefits is being built.
So if that walking talking straw man / cartoon character would please present himself or herself, we can get this show on the road.

Signed, Og, who is learning Spanish using CDs from the local library, appreciates that the fire department will save his house if it catches fire.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Over on the "how rich is rich" thread, someone said that the rich consume more government services than the poor, and that statement was challenged. The rich, after all, don't need government-provided healthcare or education. So I want to talk about what government services folks who aren't poor receive.
The better question, given what I actually posted, would be which government services rich people receive that poor people don't.

Education? Everyone gets that. Healthcare (in the UK)? everyone gets that. Transport? Everyone gets that. Emergency services? Everyone gets them as and when required. Libraries? Available to all.

To say that rich people don't use any government services is ludicrous. But to say that they consume significantly more government resources than poor people needs to be backed up.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
The list is endless

First, my education. Went to public primary and secondary schools. BA and MA in private colleges but I could not have done that without government backed student loans.

Law Enforcement helps keep me safe--though not to pleased when it is me getting the ticket.

Regulation of public utilities to help keep my power rates low.

A plane just flew over the house. I am thankful the government provides funding for airports, develops safety regulations, enforces those regulations, provides flight control.

Food Safety regs

Banking regulation

I could go on. These were the ones that came to the top of my head literally and figuratively.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
To say that rich people don't use any government services is ludicrous. But to say that they consume significantly more government resources than poor people needs to be backed up.
Rich people simply own more stuff. More/bigger houses, more land, more/bigger cars. One of the primary functions of the state (certainly from a rich person's point of view) is to stop us plebs from rising up, confiscating their stuff and/or burning it down, no matter how they obtained said riches.

That alone should make the richest pathetically grateful to the state and shower it with money, so that the state can keep on protecting their grossly privileged lives.

( [Biased] )
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
One of the primary functions of the state...is to stop us plebs from rising up
Of course it is! Because once you've risen up, you'll no longer be dependent on the state... [Biased]
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
From the federal government, the enumerated items of Article 1, Section 8.

From the state government, those it is instructed to do by the state constitution.

In North Carolina, education is covered by Article 9. NC Constitution
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
The two I am most grateful for are the Health Service and the Education System.
 
Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :
 
well, I like to breathe clean air. I like to drink clean water. I like to eat inspected, uncontaminated food. I like to know that when I take a drug, it's what it says it is and generally has been tested to do what it says it does.
police
fire fighters
ambulance
water/sewer (although that could be privatized, but where I live it's provided by the county. I do pay for it, though, so not sure if this counts)
when I use a bank, I know my investment is insured, and regulated (at least somewhat).
waste removal (hauled by a private company, but sent to a municipal landfill)
certain legal advice is free (county or state funded). so is other advice available though the state cooperative extension service.

that's in addition to the more obvious things like education, roads and parks that others have listed.

what do my taxes pay for that I don't approve of? wars. subsidies for big business. logging on federal land. farming/grazing on federal land. aid for developers (housing) for infrastructure to support housing developments that I don't believe should be build, let alone supported by taxes. road improvements which just allow more construction further out, thus increasing traffic on those roads, rather than investing in mass transit.

I"m sure I could make longer lists on both sides.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Currently, free bus rides, free prescriptions and optician's checkups, soon - winter fuel allowance.

Supposedly they come from the government but actually I paid in 40 years' national insurance.
 
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Over on the "how rich is rich" thread, someone said that the rich consume more government services than the poor, and that statement was challenged. The rich, after all, don't need government-provided healthcare or education. So I want to talk about what government services folks who aren't poor receive.
The better question, given what I actually posted, would be which government services rich people receive that poor people don't.
That insurance for the underground oil tank? You have to be rich enough to be a homeowner to qualify for that. Poor people don't get it, because they don't own homes.

When you buy private insurance, you pay more if you're covering more property, or more valuable property. Fire and police protection are insurance-like services, and the rich are getting a far greater value for their fire protection and police protection than the poor are. (And police often don't even respond to calls in poor areas, and fire department response times are slower.)

Likewise, the rich get better public schools than the poor do, with better teachers, nicer buildings, newer books and equipment, and smaller classes.

The poor don't receive much in the way of benefit from public funding for airports and the like, since they don't fly.

I'm sure you can think of some as well.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Education? Everyone gets that. Healthcare (in the UK)? everyone gets that. Transport? Everyone gets that. Emergency services? Everyone gets them as and when required. Libraries? Available to all.
Everyone may have access to free education, but if it is used by all classes equally your country is much more drastically different from mine than I think it is. Certainly here the well off get MUCH MUCH better schooling than those who are not and it is a pretty steady graph that the better off you are the more you take advantage of good schooling. Even transport is different. For one thing, the roads in commercial neighborhoods--where property is probably not owned by the poor--and in very nice neighborhoods are always better than they are in normal neighborhoods. It's not just that though. I know that in my town train service to well-off areas is somehow much better than to say the south side which is coincidentally I'm sure much poorer and much less white. Healthcare is obviously different between our countries, but again emergency services fits the argument better than you imply. Response time is waay better in some neighborhoods than others. Unshockingly, the rich people in the gold coast aren't the ones who have to wait forever. Heck, even libraries, looking at the CPL map, it looks notably denser on the north side.
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Everyone may have access to free education, but if it is used by all classes equally your country is much more drastically different from mine than I think it is. Certainly here the well off get MUCH MUCH better schooling than those who are not and it is a pretty steady graph that the better off you are the more you take advantage of good schooling.
In the UK, the well off get much, much better schooling because they pay for it. Likewise many wealthy people pay for private healthcare rather than rely on the NHS. So the two most obvious services provided by the state are frequently not used by the rich.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
If you're richer you pay less percentage of total income as tax. Not exactly a service, but certainly meaningful.
 
Posted by Bene Gesserit (# 14718) on :
 
OK, I’m thinking as I type here, which is probably not a good idea. My Other Half and I are British and live in Britain, and we are both proud of e.g. the National Health Service and our libraries. I know that government subsidised my degree studies and I am very grateful for that.

The one thing we do ‘get’ from the state that a household where folks are unemployed or earning a low wage probably wouldn’t is the effective subsidy on nearly all rail fares – and travel is actually an increasingly rare treat given how rail fares have risen! I am happy to benefit from that subsidy but sad to know that these days, rail travel is increasingly out of the question for the unemployed or low paid.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
In the UK, the well off get much, much better schooling because they pay for it.
They do pay for it. They pay for it by buying a house within the catchment area of the school of their choice, pricing out the less well-off and renters, and forming an enclave of rich people sending their children to a state-funded-but-very-nice school.

That's how it works, right?

(edited for borked code)

[ 24. September 2013, 19:35: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
 
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :
 
Happens all the time round us (SE London/Kent). Those that can afford it buy somewhere close to a good primary school, get first child in, then at some point in the next few years move somewhere close to a good secondary school, use a "sibling rule" to get second etc child into the primary school, then proximity to get into the secondary school.
 
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
They do pay for it. They pay for it by buying a house within the catchment area of the school of their choice, pricing out the less well-off and renters, and forming an enclave of rich people sending their children to a state-funded-but-very-nice school.
Which is why the Assisted Places Scheme was such a good thing. We should have privatized the state schools and made it the default.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
They do pay for it. They pay for it by buying a house within the catchment area of the school of their choice, pricing out the less well-off and renters, and forming an enclave of rich people sending their children to a state-funded-but-very-nice school.
Which is why the Assisted Places Scheme was such a good thing. We should have privatized the state schools and made it the default.
No, terrible idea - giving away public assets to private concerns to make a profit on them is madness.

Bussing, however, upsets all the right people - difficult to work in rural areas, but easy enough in towns and cities.
 
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :
 
I'd say that Federal Deposit Insurance favors the rich. Interestingly, while it is only supposed to protect a set amount (currently $250,00 per institution account), in practice every penny on deposit has been covered. Thus, the rich have been protected even from their own folly.

Likewise, government oversight (such as it has been or is) of the securities sector helps the rich far more than the poor.
 
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :
 
As to roads, it has been my experience that the wealth of an area can very often be determined by the condition of its roads.
 
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
They do pay for it. They pay for it by buying a house within the catchment area of the school of their choice, pricing out the less well-off and renters, and forming an enclave of rich people sending their children to a state-funded-but-very-nice school.
Which is why the Assisted Places Scheme was such a good thing. We should have privatized the state schools and made it the default.
In that case the already overworked, understaffed, and underfunded would end up even more overworked, understaffed, and underfunded. Brilliant!
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Everyone may have access to free education, but if it is used by all classes equally your country is much more drastically different from mine than I think it is. Certainly here the well off get MUCH MUCH better schooling than those who are not and it is a pretty steady graph that the better off you are the more you take advantage of good schooling.
In the UK, the well off get much, much better schooling because they pay for it. Likewise many wealthy people pay for private healthcare rather than rely on the NHS. So the two most obvious services provided by the state are frequently not used by the rich.
Except of course they do use them, because the NHS and the state school system educates and maintains the health of the working people who make their wealth possible.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Currently, free bus rides, free prescriptions and optician's checkups, soon - winter fuel allowance.

Supposedly they come from the government but actually I paid in 40 years' national insurance.
All very lovely, and I look forward to them myself, but in the UK at least, national insurance isn't "insurance". What you were paying for in those 40 years was other people's bus passes, prescriptions, etc. Now, other people are paying for yours.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Roads and govt subsidised public transport are the first 2 that spring to mind - although transport subsidies here are nowhere near as substantial s in Europe generally. When we retire and stop paid work, we shall be entitled to Seniors' Cards, not means tested, which will give us very low local fares. The ABC - our equivalent o the BBC and CBC - and the Aust Opera rely on govt money. Air safety, although I imagine that most if not all of that is recouped via govt charges on airlines and thus from thgse buying tickets. We pay private health insurance, so that's our own cost. But if we were catastrophically ill, there are safety nets from which we would benefit, Our parents had no govt assistance for school fees, but these days, payments to private schools have reduced the fees we would otherwise pay for Dlet's education.

Indirectly of course,we and the rest of the community benefit from the provision of education, health, and a wide range of other services to those who cannot pay. Neither of us begrudges this at all. It's not charity, it's part of being a civilised community.
 
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Currently, free bus rides, free prescriptions and optician's checkups, soon - winter fuel allowance.

Supposedly they come from the government but actually I paid in 40 years' national insurance.
All very lovely, and I look forward to them myself, but in the UK at least, national insurance isn't "insurance". What you were paying for in those 40 years was other people's bus passes, prescriptions, etc. Now, other people are paying for yours.
Indeed. And I wonder if one had not paid the NI, but saved it, if one's contributions would have actually provided the money for these benefits. For instance, to get an annuity which pays £5000/year which is inflation linked like the state pension when male and 65, one would probably need a lump sum significantly in excess of £100,000.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
I think Doc Tor and Karl have already answered this comment from Marvin:
quote:
In the UK, the well off get much, much better schooling because they pay for it. Likewise many wealthy people pay for private healthcare rather than rely on the NHS. So the two most obvious services provided by the state are frequently not used by the rich.
EVERYONE, not just the rich, pays for the NHS and the schools. The poor pay proportionately more of their income in tax (VAT, property taxes, it's not just about income tax you know). Presumably you are talking here about people who are rich enough to afford private schools for their children. Many of these people save money by putting their children into a (good) state-funded primary school and transferring to a private secondary school when the child reaches the age of 11. And as several people have already pointed out, the quality of the state-run part of the education system is variable. Your children will get a much better education if you are rich enough to buy a house in the catchment area of a good school and intelligent enough to game the system.

In healthcare, almost everyone uses the emergency services (which are publicly funded). Private health insurance generally covers things like elective surgery and regular checkups for the 'worried well'. If you develop complications during your elective surgery (knee replacement, gallstone removal, breast implants, whatever) you will probably be transferred to an NHS hospital. So it's just as well the public system is there to deal with the fallout from the private hospitals, isn't it? Plus all the staff in private hospitals have probably been trained in the NHS and some of them might work part-time for the NHS.

In this country the private healthcare system is massively subsidised by the NHS, which provides the (relatively) rich with a safety net for all those expensive emergency procedures that aren't profitable enough for their private hospital to bother with, training for their medical personnel and an endless supply of the lower orders to try out new treatments on.

So rich people also benefit from the NHS and the state-run education system, over and above the more indirect benefits of having an educated and (reasonably) health workforce to exploit.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The better question, given what I actually posted, would be which government services rich people receive that poor people don't.
Start with The Land Registry. You do not own land unless the society you live in agrees that you do. Poor people don't generally own houses.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Just thought of another one after reading Belle Ringer's thread about rats in All Saints; pest control. Our council charges a (moderate) fee for pest removal. We haven't had rats but we did have to call them a couple of times to get wasps' nests removed. They came within a couple of days, zapped the wasps, job done.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
Indeed. And I wonder if one had not paid the NI, but saved it, if one's contributions would have actually provided the money for these benefits. For instance, to get an annuity which pays £5000/year which is inflation linked like the state pension when male and 65, one would probably need a lump sum significantly in excess of £100,000.
Actually, if you take into account that your employer pays NI too, it's probably comparable. I just did a little mental arithmentic backflip and worked out that in 40 years of working I'll have paid something like £70,000 in NI. I don't know what my employers will have paid because I can't remember the contribution rates offhand.

A lot has been said on this thread about private healthcare versus the NHS. People tend to forget that the NHS provides (heavily subsidised)training for nurses and doctors who later go into private practice; the NHS takes on the difficult or unfashionable treatments that private parctice won't; and when private practitioners screw up, it's NHS emergency departments that have to put it right. I don't know if there have been any studies of the cost to the NHS of supporting private healthcare, but I'd guess it's a few billion.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
(Apologies: dawdling over my last post, I hadn't seen Jane R's, which makes substantially the same points about private healthcare and the NHS.)
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
I'm grateful for any number of things I get from my government, but at the top of the list I have to put my hearing aids.

I got these through my state's Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, a subset of the Department of Education. Voc Rehab runs on 1/4 state money and 3/4 federal money. I work for near-poverty wages; hearing aids are very expensive; at the time I applied, aids were not covered by any insurance.

Yet the simple fact is that, when I first applied, my hearing deficit made me significantly less-effective at my job. Now, years later, the aging process has diminished my always-poor hearing to the point that I cannot perform some essential functions of my job at all without them.

Voc Rehab paid for my hearing aids in full -- a cost that equals 1/7 of my annual before-tax salary. There's no way I could have purchased these on my own. Without them, I'd be forced to apply for Social Security Disability. I'd have to stop working, and I would be living an existence so marginal as to be miserable.
 
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Currently, free bus rides, free prescriptions and optician's checkups, soon - winter fuel allowance.

Supposedly they come from the government but actually I paid in 40 years' national insurance.
All very lovely, and I look forward to them myself, but in the UK at least, national insurance isn't "insurance". What you were paying for in those 40 years was other people's bus passes, prescriptions, etc. Now, other people are paying for yours.
Like Leo I too am grateful for my free bus pass etc plus my state pension. What I was paying for in NI contributions to receive my state pension and SERPS addition was an entitlement. My SERPS addition is based on my earnings not on what anyone else is earning now.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The better question, given what I actually posted, would be which government services rich people receive that poor people don't.
Start with The Land Registry. You do not own land unless the society you live in agrees that you do. Poor people don't generally own houses.
If there were no government you would own whatever land you said you owned as long as you could kick the ass of anyone who said different.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Currently, free bus rides, free prescriptions and optician's checkups, soon - winter fuel allowance.

Supposedly they come from the government but actually I paid in 40 years' national insurance.
All very lovely, and I look forward to them myself, but in the UK at least, national insurance isn't "insurance". What you were paying for in those 40 years was other people's bus passes, prescriptions, etc. Now, other people are paying for yours.
And that, really, is where this turns from a Heaven thread into a Purgatory thread. We can all identify a government program that we like and benefit from. And we all pay for them. Now that I own a house and see property tax on my monthly statement, I become acutely aware of how I am affected each time we approve another tax increase (all tax increases in this state have to be voter approved; it may sound like a good idea, but it is actually a real pain to work out). Specifically, I have to pay x more dollars a month, which means x fewer dollars a month to spend on food, insurance, fuel, utilities, and entertainment. At the end of some months, having that x dollars in my pocket would make a real difference. So the discussion has to go beyond "can't the government do wonderful things for us." We have to look at how we fund the government, how much revenue it is practicable for the government to bring in, what we are willing to sacrifice to bring in more money, and how we divvy up what we have brought in. I don't think we have hit on an ideal solution in the United States; far from it. But somewhere between "they want to kill big bird" and "they are turning us into Greece" is an adult discussion of what tasks the government can do more efficiently and fairly than the private sector, and how we fund it so that it can do those tasks.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
I am rich (though not according to Marvin's definition) I benefit in a number of ways that people who are poor don't.

The goverment paid for primary education like everyone else - but also my public boarding school secondary education because my father was employed abroad on government business (and yes, it does depend on seniority and therefore income - they paid much less towards the education of the children of squaddies stationed overseas permenantly). They paid for my first degree like others, and for my doctorate because I was going to work in health care. I own a house, recorded on the land registry - on which no inheritance tax was paid because of the frankly massive amount you can inherit before it counts. The proportion of my income I spend on necessities is lower than people on benefits. I am able to buy more durable products so they don't break and need replacing all the time - because I can spend more on the initial purchase. Simliarly, I can indulge my conscience in ethical purchases for the same reason.

I can afford to kick up a fuss at work, because I don't live in fear of losing my job - I know I could rent out space in my house if I needed to. (For which incidentally, I get a tax rebate - you rent one room and don't charge above a certain amount you are not obliged to declare it. If I was in a council flat, I wouldn't be able to take a lodger to cover the bed room tax though.)

I could go on, but it makes me uncomfortable. And I think that is one of the reasons no one will admit they are rich, it sounds too much like you are bragging. The definition of ony if you never need to work again, or never worry about money again is just ridiculous - as I said before, that is like saying you are only intelligent if you are genius. You are talking about a tiny fraction of the population who make obscene amounts of money. Rich cuts in before that.

Pick a meaningful definition - someone on double the average wage for example, or top quartile of the population.

[crosspost]

[ 25. September 2013, 16:29: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
I'm grateful for any number of things I get from my government, but at the top of the list I have to put my hearing aids.
That's the next issue I need to face - though i am not sure I want the volume of unfamiliar noise that will come in its wake. But don't want to leave it so late that they nerve endings are too deadened to make such aids effective.

But good old NHS! To go privately would cost me, they told me, £4 grand for the minimum.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The better question, given what I actually posted, would be which government services rich people receive that poor people don't.
Start with The Land Registry. You do not own land unless the society you live in agrees that you do. Poor people don't generally own houses.
If there were no government you would own whatever land you said you owned as long as you could kick the ass of anyone who said different.
Indeed. And they'd own it when they kicked your ass. When, not if. You'll never always be the strongest, the fastest, or the most connected.
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
That's the next issue I need to face - though i am not sure I want the volume of unfamiliar noise that will come in its wake.

. . .


But good old NHS! To go privately would cost me, they told me, £4 grand for the minimum.
Yes; you can get quite a fancy car (in the US, anyway) for the price of decent hearing aids.

They now have aids with volume control adjustable by the wearer-- very helpful during the adjustment period.
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
In the UK, the well off get much, much better schooling because they pay for it. Likewise many wealthy people pay for private healthcare rather than rely on the NHS. So the two most obvious services provided by the state are frequently not used by the rich.
Oh no.

The idea that those who pay for private healthcre just does not work. The ambulance service and Accident and Emergency units in hospitals are provided as part of the NHS.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The better question, given what I actually posted, would be which government services rich people receive that poor people don't.
Start with The Land Registry. You do not own land unless the society you live in agrees that you do. Poor people don't generally own houses.
If there were no government you would own whatever land you said you owned as long as you could kick the ass of anyone who said different.
Indeed. And they'd own it when they kicked your ass. When, not if. You'll never always be the strongest, the fastest, or the most connected.
Isn't that how an awful of land has come to be owned in any event? If you are better armed you can run the inhabitants off their land. It happened in Britain after the Norman Conquest, during the Highland clearances, the Plantation of Ireland and as a consequence of the Enclosures Acts. I'm sure similar events occurred in the USA, Australia and just about any modern nation.

I currently pay about £600 per month out of my pay packet for National Insurance Contributions and Income tax. Over the years our five children have been born and educated for a total of 66 years between them. As a family we have had various needs satisfied by the NHS used leisure facilities provided by city, town and county councils and they take the trash away each week. Eventually I hope to retire and get a state pension of c £7500 per year. My income has been higher at various times in the past than it is now, so taking £600 per month as a baseline for 45 years gives a sum of £324000 and that's before council taxes/rates and indirect taxes are accounted for. Overall, I should think the government has had and will get about a cool half-a-million out of me.

But then, taxes are not levied for the benefit of the taxed. Being taxed is far better than having such a low income that you aren't liable to pay tax!
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
But then, taxes are not levied for the benefit of the taxed.
That's nuts. The taxes I pay for the fire department are for my benefit. The taxes I pay for roads are for my benefit. The taxes I pay for the police service are for my benefit. Need I go on?
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
I think that is precisely the point. Services rendered to an individual are not consideration for taxes paid by that individual. Everyone gets services as is fair and contributes to the pot as is fair*

*Unless you are rich enough to avoid your taxes.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I think it is confusing, at the very least. All taxes are levied for the benefit of the taxed, if by "the taxed" you mean "the people living in the city/state/shire/council/province/nation that is collecting the taxes."
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
All taxes are levied for the benefit of those resident in the jurisdiction. Some of those residents will pay tax. Some won't.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
All taxes are levied for the benefit of those resident in the jurisdiction. Some of those residents will pay tax. Some won't.
True. But that's not what the English sentence "Taxes are not levied for the benefit of the taxed" means.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
Relax [Cool]
 
Posted by Sighthound (# 15185) on :
 
One of the prime and earliest functions of the state is to protect property. Since the rich have (much) more property than the poor, they clearly benefit most from this area of the state's provision.

I am not just talking about such things as stopping burglars. Contract law, and the laws governing property ownership *and the means to enforce them* all come under this head.

I always wonder why people who hate the concept of government don't move to Somalia, as it is a working example of a locus without an effective government. Taxes there are very low, and there are no socialists telling everyone what to do.

Of course what they really mean is they want to pay less tax and have a government that only does the things they want it to, like protect (their) property and bomb foreigners.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Cod:
quote:
Some of those residents will pay tax. Some won't.
[Roll Eyes] If you live somewhere that imposes sales tax (or VAT as it is called in the UK) everyone pays some tax, regardless of whether or not they earn enough for the government to tax their income.

People who live in rented accommodation also pay property taxes (indirectly). There may perhaps be landlords in Nirvana-on-Sea who pay the property taxes out of their own pockets to save their tenants the expense, but landlords in the rest of the world are in the business to make a profit.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sighthound:
I always wonder why people who hate the concept of government don't move to Somalia, as it is a working example of a locus without an effective government. Taxes there are very low, and there are no socialists telling everyone what to do.

Of course what they really mean is they want to pay less tax and have a government that only does the things they want it to, like protect (their) property and bomb foreigners.
If 'they' want a government that does limited things, they wouldn't want to move to Somalia, a country with no effective government at all, would they?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Has anybody mentioned money? If you use money you are using a system set up and maintained by the government. The more money you have, the more you use this service.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
All taxes are levied for the benefit of those resident in the jurisdiction. Some of those residents will pay tax. Some won't.
True. But that's not what the English sentence "Taxes are not levied for the benefit of the taxed" means.
I glibly and hurriedly used a favourite quote from Robert A Heinlein.

I suppose the underlying meaning is that the benefits are not proportionate to the taxes you pay. Although the 'rich' should never forget that their major gain from welfare payments is probably to dissuade the poor from lining up and shooting everyone with an income over average earnings. The Romans called it Panem et Circenses I believe.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
What services would I be happy to receive?
The above is not in any sort of order, but gives a broad outline.

They are the services I would be happy to receive and, perhaps more important, those I am happy to pay towards.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I suppose the underlying meaning is that the benefits are not proportionate to the taxes you pay.
This much is true. The benefits are massively, ridiculously good value for what you pay and that doesn't matter who you are.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
...or, to put it another way

The UK has a so-called Social Insurance scheme which has no underlying fund, nor does it invest the premiums.

Therefore the whole scheme has been, effectively, bankrupt since day one.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sighthound:
I always wonder why people who hate the concept of government don't move to Somalia, as it is a working example of a locus without an effective government. Taxes there are very low, and there are no socialists telling everyone what to do.

Of course what they really mean is they want to pay less tax and have a government that only does the things they want it to, like protect (their) property and bomb foreigners.
There is actually an argument that Somalia's former government was so bad that on many economic and development scales, the quality of life actually improved ever so slightly when anarchy set in. Not enough to make Somali-style Anarchy an attractive system, but a really bad government can be worse than none at all.

But once again, we find ourselves at the old straw man. We want good government, as opposed to you, who want to abolish water treatment plants.

I'd say your classification of what "they" actually want is a pretty succinct explanation of what most people instinctively want from government- lots of good things for themselves, at the lowest possible price. So once again, you have to figure out how to balance those two desires; the age old questions sill remain, (a) how much money can we raise without people leaving the country or getting so bitter that they throw us out of power and (b) how do we spend that money efficiently and fairly?
 
Posted by Amika (# 15785) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Currently, free bus rides, free prescriptions and optician's checkups, soon - winter fuel allowance.

Supposedly they come from the government but actually I paid in 40 years' national insurance.
All very lovely, and I look forward to them myself, but in the UK at least, national insurance isn't "insurance". What you were paying for in those 40 years was other people's bus passes, prescriptions, etc. Now, other people are paying for yours.
While that's true, it has occurred to me lately that my sense of shame at being on benefits for the past couple of years is unwarranted.

The amount of money I've received in benefits so far is a tiny percentage of what I paid in for 35 years, and it's my hope to be paying in again soon.

There was something to be said for the old 'I've paid in so that I can draw out when in need' idea. We're being made to feel like scum now, even if we had been taxpayers up until the bad times.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
...or, to put it another way

The UK has a so-called Social Insurance scheme which has no underlying fund, nor does it invest the premiums.

Therefore the whole scheme has been, effectively, bankrupt since day one.
Exactly. It's a compulsory Ponzi Scheme.

It should be, and should always have been, managed properly,
with our contributions going into a fund, as happens with LA, and I think, teachers' pensions.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
That's actually irrelevant. Tax-funded benefits such as pensions are paid for by people who are still working, as taxes. Investment-funded pensions are paid for by people who are still working, out of the proportion of what they produce that is withheld from them by their employers and paid in dividends to shareholders. It comes to the same thing in the end. Those who work are paying for those who don't.


For near-universal schemes like old-age pensions and the NHS paying for it out of taxation is fairer, because it spreads the burden more widely, and its a heck of a lot more efficient. (I doubt if there are any private companies anywhere whose overheads are anything like as low as the Inland Revenue's!)
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sighthound:

I always wonder why people who hate the concept of government don't move to Somalia . . .
Maybe for similar reasons people who are just crazy in love with the concept of government don't move to North Korea.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
Or Singapore.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
... So once again, you have to figure out how to balance those two desires; the age old questions sill remain, (a) how much money can we raise without people leaving the country or getting so bitter that they throw us out of power and (b) how do we spend that money efficiently and fairly?
Except that the real question isn't about money. It's about what kind of society we want and what we're willing to do to create it. "How much money" to collect, and using it "efficiently and fairly" depend entirely on what we are trying to accomplish. If the discussion is only about the money, and not what we accomplish with it, then we're not acting as citizens in a democracy, we're just shoppers looking for the lowest price.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
quote:
what we're willing to do to create it
Perhaps you could explain how money isn't, at the very least, a factor in this question, bearing in mind that, in a republican system, "we" ultimately means a majority of the voters.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Cod:
quote:
Some of those residents will pay tax. Some won't.
[Roll Eyes] If you live somewhere that imposes sales tax (or VAT as it is called in the UK) everyone pays some tax, regardless of whether or not they earn enough for the government to tax their income.

People who live in rented accommodation also pay property taxes (indirectly). There may perhaps be landlords in Nirvana-on-Sea who pay the property taxes out of their own pockets to save their tenants the expense, but landlords in the rest of the world are in the business to make a profit.
My four year-old daughter who earns no income, hasn't got an interest-bearing bank account, and has never purchased anything in her life pays no tax. Nevertheless she as an individual is entitled to government services paid by others' taxes as are necessary for her. This is as it should be. I get irritated when talk of "citizens' rights' is replaced with "taxpayers' rights". It suggests incorrectly that what you get out of the system should match what you put in.

In jurisdictions like Hong Kong, lots of people will pay no tax.

Why the rolling eyes? I thought my point quite obvious.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0