in article camual$i38$2@news.Stanford.EDU, mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net at
mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote on 6/15/04 10:41 PM:

> Ernest Schaal <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote:

[SNIP]

>> As to your statement that the very rich benefit disproportionately from
>> government services, that is true only if one views the benefit on a per
>> capita basis.
> 
>> For instance, Bill Gates receives a lot more government services than a
>> person who is among the working poor, but the ratio of government services
>> received to taxes collected would be a lot smaller than for the working
>> poor.
> 
> In order to protect his wealth, he requires roads, an education system
> (for him to acquire educated workers), large-scale and long-term stability
> (fiscal and political), interaction with other stable corporate and
> political entities, armed protection of a vast array of assets (police,
> armed forces, various government agencies looking into misuse of his
> funds by those trusted by him to invest them), building regulators to
> ensure that someone doesn't build a polyamine-extraction facility upwind
> from his very expensive abode, etc.
> 
> The very poor require a check-cashing service to "protect" their wealth.
> The government services they recieve are more along the lines of
> survival based, and their existence benefits Mr Gates greatly by keeping
> them from getting too restive and desparate and doing to Mr Gates what
> people have historically done to those they perceive (rightly or
> wrongly) as taking advantage of an unfair system.
> 
> In sum, Mr Gates benefits from almost ALL government services, whether a
> check is handed to him or not.
> 
> Mike

I agree that Bill Gates gets more benefits from government services on a PER
CAPITA basis, but clearly he does NOT receive anywhere near as much benefits
on a basis PROPORTIONAL TO TAXES PAID. (I hate shouting, but you simply
aren't paying attention otherwise.)

I notice that you focus solely on "check-cashing service," which isn't even
a government service and dismiss all other government services they receive
as "survival based," as if that means those services don't count in any
determination of relative benefits. That is dishonest, and is not worthy of
you. The poorer that one gets, the less one pays in taxes and the more
benefits one is entitled to (welfare, low-income housing, medicare, etc.).
The poorest pay no taxes but get benefits, so the proportion of benefits to
taxes approaches infinity.

By the way, your comment that "Mr Gates benefits from almost ALL government
services" is as misleading as the trickle-down theory that the poor benefit
from yacht purchases, because that causes employment and causes the workers
in the yacht industry to have money that they can spend elsewhere, which
means that other have more money to spend, etc.

This does not mean that it is improper for tax money gotten from the rich to
be used for the poor, but it does mean that it is intellectually dishonest
to try to justify of such an income-redistribution mechanism on the premise
that the increased taxes paid are in line with the increased benefits
received.