> I think it can be argued that the wealthy do get a greater
> share of 'common defence and public facilities'.
And it can be argued that bloodletting is good for you, because it rids you
of old, tired blood, and forces you to make new, healthy, fresh blood. But
is it empirically true?

> Having more property than the rest of us, it follows
> that the wealthy need more protection, than someone
> who has nothing anyone would want to steal.
This is not empirically true. Burglary is more common in poorer areas. But
we are parsing single digit percentage points, and decimal places. We are
not talking about the poor getting no public services, and the rich getting
49.6%.

But the rich own the industrial / commercial properties, right? So, when
Malden Mills burns to the ground, who is more likely to get hurt? The
wealthy owner, who has resources as well as insurance, or the employee who
is one paycheck away from being broke?

Again, the question is: who pays for what? How much money from personal
income goes in, and what do they get back out in services for what they pay?
You can argue that if the restaurant brings a basket with one dozen dinner
rolls, the ten men do not divide two of them into five equal parts. But
neither do the two who pay 49.6% get three rolls each, while the first four
men get nothing.

But the genius of our system is that most people could not tell you what
they pay in, and care mostly about what they get back out for their money.
And if this is our government, a slightly below average dinner for ten comes
to fifteen hundred dollars, thirty dollars for the actual meal, and four
times that for government inefficiencies. And while the government
restaurant accepts gratuities, no one bothers tipping, not even those who
are certain they should be paying more.

Greg Stigers, MCSA
this space for rent

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *