theCatch_man
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!
theCatch_man t1_ixe6dtz wrote
Reply to comment by pahnzoh in I'm European, how to move to New Hampshire? by alexkourtis
This is bad logic. Better schools for anyone’s kids is better for all of us in the long run. Better for the economy, better for society as a whole.
We also pay for plenty of things we don’t use, like anyone under 40 for social security and everyone paying for Medicare even if we don’t use it. We should pay, because social programs are good for the entire population in the long run, and just because you don’t have kids doesn’t mean you won’t benefit from a well educated population.
theCatch_man t1_ixejbvn wrote
Reply to comment by pahnzoh in I'm European, how to move to New Hampshire? by alexkourtis
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.