in article cb0194$qkh$5@news.Stanford.EDU, mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net at
mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote on 6/19/04 9:27 AM:

> Ernest Schaal <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote:
>> in article caurq1$qvh$10@news.Stanford.EDU, mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net at
>> mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote on 6/18/04 10:47 PM:
> 
>>> If you disagree, could you explain how he does NOT derive benefit from
>>> roads, stability, laws to protect wealth and control such things as
>>> stock markets, legal protections of intellectual properties, etc?
> 
>> Assuming that one could distort the definition of government benefit to
> 
> Sorry, that's not a distortion. It's a simple statement of fact.
> 
> Gates NEEDS good roads, good public education, good police protection,
> good banking systems, stable international markets, etc., ALL of which
> are funded wholely or partly by federal taxes. The very poorest really
> don't derive much benefit from any of those, now do they?
> 
> Mike
> 

Mike,

Gates does benefit from good roads, good public education, good police
protection, good banking systems, stable international markets, etc. So do
the poor. The poor also benefit from things, whether you admit it or not.
The poor also benefit from things like food stamps, rent coupons, and a
variety of welfare programs.

No one is denying that Gates benefits from government programs, but you
apparently are ignoring that the poor benefit for state and federal handout
programs.

More importantly, you ignore the fact that Gates pays more in taxes than he
receives in governmental benefits, while the poor pay less taxes than they
receive in governmental benefits.

What I consider a distortion in the definition of governmental benefit is
that it assumes that if the government spends $100 million dollars in a
contract with Gates' company, then the benefit to Gates personally is $100
million dollars. That is definitely not the case.

Yes Gates gets more benefits than the poor or the middle class, but then
Gates pays orders of magnitude more in taxes than he receives in benefits.
If the only basis for determining taxes is the benefits received, Gates' tax
rate would be LOWER than the tax rate of the middle class, since at flat tax
rate the rich would pay MUCH more in taxes (in relation to benefits
received) than the poor or the middle class.

The problem with your failure to quantify the government benefits received
is that it leads to the illusion that the value of those benefits for the
rich are fantastically high in comparison to the poor. The rich got rich in
spite of the "progressive" tax system, not because of it.

If there were no government, there will still be poor and rich. Look at what
happens when government breaks down and anarchy results. In anarchy, many
are poor and some businessmen make out like bandits. Governments and stable
economies improve the position of the poor and middle class dramatically.