Subject:
|
Re: All important (was: Amtrak Told to Plan Liquidation)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 12 Nov 2001 12:15:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
512 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> And buildings exist for the convenience of companies to house their workers.
> They're not necessary, but they're benefiting from the increased security, so
> why not charge a fee on top of the lessees rent?
Maybe I'm still not following you here, but I would tend to say yes, the
things that are a RESULT of the building's existance ought to be borne by
the building users
> Of course, if you start down
> this road it's gonna become an admin nightmare, so why not just a flat fee for
> everyone?
This doesn't follow. Just because some fair thing is hard to do is not an
argument for doing an unfair thing instead.
> My point is that the extra security is benefiting *all* people.
Yes, true. And the lack of pollution from chemical plants "benefits" all
people too.
> And as you said
> above, they're all equally important, so why shouldn't they all contribute
> equally?
Equal when performing risk calculus does not mean equal costs should be
apportioned. So no, I did not say that.
> Sure, passengers (airlines) should pay their share, and I think I said
> somewhere earlier that maybe their "share" is a bit more than others (though
> I'm still not sure about this), but if I was a non-flyer, I'd still be happy >to
> pay some kind of levy (fee, tax, whatever) to be a little more sure that my
> work-place[1] wouldn't be rammed by an airliner. Thus also reducing the
> financial load on the passengers (airlines).
Let's work that chemical plant analogy and see if you are happy with the
result of applying your logic (assuming I get it right).
For the purposes of this analogy, let's assume the following
- I own a 1 square mile area on which I built a plant.
- I have 8 neighbors around me (each in the same 1 mile square plot)
- My plant generates 10M in revenue a year
- My plant produces pollution that costs 9M to ameliorate (whether I stop it
at the plant or whether it reaches my neighbors)
- My plant has no other incremental running costs (it uses geo energy or
something)
- The wind blows and carries the pollution away. It blows randomly so 1/8 of
it goes to each neighbor.
- None gets beyond these eight neighbors
Under your calculus, the 9M cost of amelioration ought to be borne equally
by all 9 of us. That is, each of us ponys up 1M.
This is an AWESOME result, for me. I get 10M benefit and pay 1M cost. My
neighbours get 0 benefit (unless you say that not getting polluted when they
did NOTHING to cause the pollution is somehow a "benefit") but pay 1M cost each.
What a great wealth transfer scheme! As the polluter, I love it.
OK, suppose you say, well, that's not fair, as the beneficiary I should pay
a bit more, but not all of the cost.
Sure, I'm down for that. Let's only charge my neighbors .5M each... that
leaves me the other 5M of cost but it's still a wealth transfer of 4M from
them to me. Not as good as the original 8M but hey, free money!
The FAIR outcome in this hypothetical scenario is that I pay all 9M and my
neighbors, who caused *none* of the risk, pay 0M.
What's wrong with this analogy? Because if it holds, the cost to non
travelers for preventing aluminum showers (that's from "Pushing Tin" by the
way, a very funny but somewhat scary/sick movie) ought to be 0. The mere
fact that they are kept safe from things they did not cause and do not
benefit from is not a reason to make them pay.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
13 Messages in This Thread:
  
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
