http://channel-surfing.blogspot.com/2006/08/debating-open-space-taxes.html
I think there are three reasons for a voluntary solution: Ethically, Effectiveness, and Efficiency
Let’s handle a few specific items.
>It is an interesting approach,
I would have appreciated if you had called it an “ethical” or “moral” or “principled” approach.
>I couldn’t disagree more with his reasoning.
I didn’t think one could disagree with the logic. Premises, assumptions, or values are open to disagreement. The logical steps should be obvious to all.
>Basically, he views the taxman, to use George Harrison’s word, as a thief
Let’s start from the logical premise that we are entitled to keep what whatever earn by the sweat of our brow. Seems like a simple principle. Whatever we decide to do is our business. Seems simple.
>government in general as an imposition.
Government takes our money. Sometimes that taking is not voluntary. That’s immoral. Seems simple.
>This assumes that all potential land buyers are equal.
Huh. If I have a million and the State has a million we are not equal? All buyers ARE equal. I don’t understand that.
>Developers have deep pockets
Which they have accumulated by satisfying the needs of other people. They have accumulated either by saving, by borrowing, or by partnering with like minded individuals, to amass the vast amounts of capital necessary to swing these deals.
>citizens, even large groups of citizens, do not have the kind of cash
Do you think that 100,000 people pledging $1,000 would NOT be equal to an evil developer? A private group working towards a common goal could raise funds in numerous ways. A farmer might even cut them a special deal that the government can’t get.
>that would be needed to target and then outbid developers for land.
If you believe that economics is a science. It tells us that markets are the ultimate arbiter for the assignment of scarce resources. By paying more for something, the person with the greatest need for an item “out bid” those to whom it is not as important. However, especially when one is talking about voluntary project, things happen differently.
> That’s why citizens turn to their local, county and state governments to intercede.
You speak as if the citizens are a homogeneous group. While someone may like the idea of open space, maybe they have other priorities for their money. Some may not care about open space. But, some citizens come to government to COERCE other people to chip in. I’d repeat the robbery example, but you found that unconvincing. Jefferson said that government exists with the consent of the governed. What happens when one doesn’t consent? You vote with your feet?
>As a general rule, I distrust large accumulations of power.
Good idea. What bigger accumulation of power is there but the government?
>But there is a difference between elected government and a corporation.
Yup, a corporation has to convince you voluntarily. The government just orders you about. Don’t like WalMart for any reason, just don’t shop there. Don’t like the South Brunswick library, try not to pay that portion of your taxes. See the difference? Government is the ONLY organization that can provide goods or services or even just make demands that you MUST pay for whether or not you want or use the services. Big difference.
>The government — at least in the United States — derives its power from the citizens.
I think that is an fairy tale or an illusion. Even during the Revolutionary War, at best, a third of the population supported the Revolution. One third opposed and one third was apathetic. Pre WW1, Wilson was elected on the promise to keep us out of war which he promptly got us in. Pre WW2, there was about half the population that want to be isolationist. Voting stats show that more than half of the people, who register, don’t vote. We don’t know how many people don’t even register to vote. The politicians like to manipulate us but there is a reason that the school elections are in April and there’s a ton of if and maybe that make the vote a joke. So there is no consent. The politicians figure out what they can get away with. Ross Perot will be the last third party candidate to get on the ballot. He got too close. Look at how they restrict ballot access.
>Corporations do not.
No, they derive their power from their investors and their customers. The evil WalMart can’t make me shop in their store or buy their stock.
>That makes government the equalizer, the leveller, protecting individuals against corporate abuses.
Oh, what a joke. Who protects me from the government? At least, in the in the feudal days, I could seek protection from the Church against the monarch. And, which corporate abuse is it protecting me from? Government creates regulated monopolies and then “protects” me from abuse?
>elected officials view themselves as accountable not to voters, but to campaign contributors
Hey there’s a reason that individuals spend millions to get a job that pays thousands.
>it is the power of local, county and state governments to raise money
They don’t RAISE money. You make it sound like they are running a telethon like Jerry Lewis. They use TAX money.
> and then spend it that offsets the ability of developers to dig into their own deep pockets.
Oh yeah, they are just the pure of heart knights battling the evil developers. Did you ever think about the incestuous relationships between the government, developers, landowners, and lawyers? Don’t over look the power of taxing authority, zoning, and regulations to increase the “cost” of land. It’s a giant shell game and it is NOT being run for our benefit.
>This allows citizens to compete for undeveloped land
Yeah, and this system is just so so successful.
> and — maybe, just maybe — keep some of it green and untouched.
That may or may not be the best result.
>
>
>
Now that the detailed responses are covered, let’s take the high points.
> Ethics
Theft is immoral. Even if we stipulate that the majority “consents”, it’s still immoral. If EVERY one agreed, then we would NOT need to use the power of government to FORCE the unwilling and reluctant to pay for our pet ideas.
> Effectiveness
Government doesn’t manage open space well. It is inept at best and incompetent at worst. A government bureaucrat doesn’t have a vested interest in doing ANY task well.
> Efficiency
My best argument that sending money to South Brunswick Township, Middlesex County, Trenton, or Washington DC is the most inefficient way to amass the capital necessary to preserve open space.
Here’s a crude example. Let’s assume for argument’s sake that open space is my TOP priority. Ever hear of “agency costs”?
Let’s assume that I can get 20,000 other people to chip in a grand each. That’s twenty million bucks. And we form a 501c with some rules and buy a piece of open space. I count the pennies and other donors check up on me. We twist some lawyers, accountants , and bankers to “volunteer” to be on the committee. Administrative expenses are very low. People are rewarded with applause not money.
Now, let’s assume South Brunswick “chairs” the same activity. They have to hire some help, get some advisers, bring in a lawyer, have some accountants. So out of my grand, let’s say they are very efficient and they spend 10% for “handling”.
Now, let’s bring in Middlesex County, same activity, but their costs eat up 20%.
Now, let’s bring in Trenton, same activity, but their costs eat up 30%.
Now, let’s bring in Washington DC, same activity, but their cost eat up 40%.
(These guesstimates are conservative swags.)
So, when you use gubamint taxes, the agency fees, (i.e., the cost of having an agent involved), eat up a huge amount.
Take the same thousand. Let’s have all five actors kick in equal shares. I toss my two c notes into the tin cup. SBTWP tosses in my 200 minus 20 for handling. Middlesex County ponies up net 160. Trenton net 140. And DC net 120. So instead of a thousand, we only have 800. That’s agency cost.
(Realistically, the Trenton number is probably 60% and the DC number is probably close to 80%. But those are details.)
You can reverse the process to see how much each level has to tax to get the same amount. To have 200 to chip in, SBTWP has to tax me 200=.9 * X or 2000/9=>222.22 … You get the idea.
Even worse, is when instead of directly chipping in, one level sends it to the next level incurring more overhead to eventually get it in. Think of a Federal Grant to Trenton, who turns around and gives a grant to Middlesex County, who turns around and gives a grant to SB Township, and SB TWP chips in. Arggggh, guess what the agency cost in that mess is?
I guess that about wraps it up. Government open space is unethical, ineffective, and efficient!
Remember my gripe about the SB Library and the comparison to the SM Movie. The movie didn’t make it and became a CVS. The library was mismanged and they got more of my money and an expansion! That’s the difference between gubamint and the marketplace.
IMHO
Posted by reinkefj 
You must be logged in to post a comment.