> Burglary is more common in poorer areas, but is this because the wealthy
enjoy greater
> police protection?
It is because nature rewards laziness, and smash and grab burglars are not
going to travel very far to burglarize, nor risk being noticed in nicer
neighborhoods.

> Is it because the wealthy purchase additional security?
Possibly, but they don't do it with tax dollars.

> Do the wealthy have a need for greater fire protection?
The wealthy are more likely to own more square footage (thus pay more
property taxes, which pay for fire protection), but I would suggest less
likely to incur the risk that start fires.

> I will agree that the amount of protection the wealthy get is not
necessarily proportionate
> to the taxes they pay, but it does follow in my mind that they should pay
more because their
> need for it is greater.
Which is rather like paying for rust-proofing gold. After all, the gold has
greater value, and therefore is more worth rustproofing. This kind of
reasoning is part of the problem: make the rich pay more than their
proportionate share, by whole factors instead of mere percentages. Surely
some esteemed listmember can introduce some facts about property protection
into this point of discussion. Of course, we have digressed from federal
"income" taxes to property taxes.

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 *