response 101 of 144:

Apr 17 00:07 UTC 2002

re: "because non-citizens do not
 get taxed for roads"  Note that the person who "remits" the tax
may not actually "pay" the tax.  If you ever buy something in a 
store, doesn't the price include the cost of transporting it,
which includes the cost of fuel, which includes the gas tax
paid by the trucker?

response 105 of 144:

Apr 17 06:21 UTC 2002

Possible, but extremely unlikely.  If they're from Ontario, there is a
99% chance that they *will* buy gasoline while they're here.

response 107 of 144:

Apr 17 06:54 UTC 2002

The problem with leaving society's problems to charities is that those who
contribute to the charities would end up having to contribute a lot more to
make up for those who assume that somebody else will take care of it and not
contribute.  Essentially, it would be a move from taxing income to taxing
caring, and it's not clear that that would gain us much as a social policy.

There are certain things that we as a society decide are in our common
interest, and decide to take care of.  Some obvious examples, like roads, have
been brought up here already.  Parks, schools, law enforcement, international
diplomacy, military defense, and urban planning are all things the government
gets into because they are seen as benefiting everybody, rather than just
those who would choose to pay for them.  Public transit gets funded to varying
degrees by the government not only because it benefits its riders, but because
it reduces the amount of money that needs to be spent on road construction.
College educations get public funding not only to benefit the students, but
because even the less educated members of society are seen as better off due
to the societal contributions of highly educated people.  None of this is
theft; it's we as a society, through our elected representatives, deciding
it's in our common interest to support something.

And then, sometimes, there are those things that are just the right thing to
do, even if we don't get any personal gain from them.  They may not be things
we enjoy doing, or want to deal with, but they're the things it would feel
morally wrong to not do something about.

The question here, then, is which category health care fits into, and for who.
Do we a as a society get any benefit from those who otherwise couldn't afford
it getting routine medical care.  Do we as a society get any benefit from not
having poor people dying in the streets?  Would we as a society all benefit
from having medical care freely available, just as we now all benefit from
the existence of public roads or law enforcement?  Are these benefits worth
what they cost?  If not, would it be morally ok for us to walk away from the
problems, or would that be so morally reprehensable that we would have to pay
to take care of the problems anyway?

This is not, of course, to say there isn't a place for charities.  For those
things that some people want to fund but that society as a whole doesn't,
charities are essential.  Sometimes this fills a void when society as a whole
is ignoring its responsibilities.  Other times, charities are doing work that
really is considerably more important to some people than to most others, or
are allowing people to contribute beyond the amount society has determined
to be their obligation.  Still, brushing off every expensive problem as
something that should be handled by charities seems to me to put an unfair
burden on the charities, and on the people who are good enough to donate to
them.

response 109 of 144:

Apr 17 07:53 UTC 2002

Indeed, generally, visiters bring more $ than they consume.  The only
reason some places persist is because of the tourist trade.  Inner city
vs. suburbia is another story altogether.

response 111 of 144:

Apr 18 02:47 UTC 2002

Appropos of nothing, one of my recent forays into Windsor in the middle of
our gas price spike found gas prices in the 60s on the other side.  Some quick
(possibly flawed) mental arithmetic indicated that the prices I found there
were at least equivalent to, and possibly a shade better than, what I would
get in the States.  Rare occurance, though, and the prices are back into the
70s as of a week ago.

response 113 of 144:

Apr 18 18:11 UTC 2002

A liter is a little more than a quart, so you would have paid about 
$2.27 per gallon that way.  If the Canadian exchange rate was 1.576 
like it is today, and you converted your cash, you'd have only been 
paying $1.45.  Was that a good price then?

response 115 of 144:

Apr 18 23:18 UTC 2002

Winds up having a big range.  I could have done the math myself, but I was
relaxing and didn't feel like it. :)  Jep's assessment sounds more attractive
and was indeed a cheaper price than several of my American fills during that
period.

response 117 of 144:

Apr 19 01:21 UTC 2002

Re: 107 - how much did the Red Cross wind up taking in after 9/11?  And how
much for all the other charities that saw a 9/11 surge?  Imagine if our taxes
only supported the Constitutional powers and roles of our government, and we
had that much more money left over to donate to support whomever and whatever
we individually choose to support, rather than having overpaid bureaucrats
picking our pockets to support their own pet projects and cronies?

response 121 of 144:

Apr 19 05:41 UTC 2002

If taxes were limited to what was needed to support the Constitutional powers
of our governments and nothing more, people would be more likely to donate
to charity other than during a big disaster.

response 123 of 144:

Apr 19 13:50 UTC 2002

Yeah...who really needs interstate highways or an air traffic control
system, anyway?