Should citizens who pay more taxes get better benefits?
 

Maybe I've asked this before (I couldn't find it), but I've been thinking about this for a while now.

I know I posted something like this on the health care debate where I think people who pay over a certain amount in taxes will be better, faster, and more personalized care compared to someone who doesn't have any money currently to pay the taxes.

There would be an incentive to get into the higher tax bracket, but still everyone would be covered and the hospitals wouldn't need to charge normal people extra to cover for people going bankrupt, illegal immigrants expenses (bigger thing in the southwest), and people having huge medical debt for years and years.

The same thing could be applied to roads where they wouldn't need to pay for tolls and would be able to use HOV lanes anytime.

National parks and campgrounds should be free for them (for a few days). And a few other 'public' benefits that most of our country has to pay for would be free if they pay enough in taxes.

Do you think it would work? Is it fair? Would it not be enough of an incentive?

I think that would defeat the purpose of having public good. It opens a whole 'nother can of worm about contribution. Why limit it to taxes, shouldn't people who volunteer for public services get some kind perks too?

The reason we have a progressive tax system is the wealthy have a disproportionately more significant interest in maintaining governmental and societal stability because they have more to lose. They're already getting their benefits for higher taxation.

Imagine you're not well off. You're just out of college, looking for a decent job, but you're still flipping burgers or whatever. You're not paying much in the way of taxes yet, even though a few years down the road you'll be successful. There's an accident. You rush to the emergency room. They make you wait as a rich couple get some minor injuries attended to free of charge simply because they make more than you.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're proposing.

It sounds like a form of plutocracy, wherein those with wealth have privileged access to just about anything. The underlying result: the upward social mobility of those without wealth would be stunted. This is what maintains that power structure. The wealthy stay wealthy, and the poor stay poor. Wealth should not dictate power and privilege on all levels of society, especially not with public money.

I feel like the people who pay more taxes (or the people who ought to) are already getting better benefits. That is why they are (or ought to be) paying more taxes.

Yes, they already do. People who pay more taxes get better public schools, live where there are better hospitals, better roads, better police forces and better fire stations.

This is just about the worst policy imaginable. Income is inversely correlated with the amount and quality of government services needed.

And, as multiple people have already said, the services the wealthy do enjoy (roads, police, schools) are already better for them.

I always thought that people who vote for wars and prison sentences and such things should have to pay a tax surcharge to cover the additional cost to government, since those people also have quite a healthy habit of voting for tax cuts to themselves.

'Taint necessarily so. My parents pay very high taxes --especially property taxes on the value of land, which does NOT necessarily produce income.:mad: Taxes are quite high, and services paltry. The schools are not bad, but the closest top notch hospital is two hours away. The local police are not very competent and the county and state cops not usually around. My parents live on a narrow two lane highway that has needed repaving for years. The fire department is a group of local volunteers.
Your statement shows typical urban bias and ignorance of the way things are outside of urban areas.

Lindy

Lindy, your parents should complain about police presence if it's not adequate.

This has nothing to do with urban bias. It may be that your parents enjoy a lower-than-average level of government services despite paying a lot in taxes; after all, we were talking earlier about the services different groups of people receive on average. There can always be exceptions.

But this doesn't change the basic math. Schools are primarily paid for by property taxes. Higher property taxes in an area results in more money for schools. Therefore, richer areas tend to have better schools. Furthermore, people tend to live in close proximity to others who share their economic status. Rich people, and by extension, rich areas have more influence politically than poor people. Their complaints get heard, their money helps politicians get reelected, etc. So they tend to receive superior services.

The fact that this isn't always true, or that rich people living in generally poorer areas won't necessarily experience the same thing, doesn't disprove the theory.

And as for the urban bias thing - as a life-long city-dweller, I can assure you that there are many areas of every city which contain both poor, middle income, and possibly even rich residents, and the services are terrible. So the same phenomenon of some rich people receiving poor government services holds true even in some of the world's biggest cities.

I can't speak for every city and obviously there are always exceptions but at least here in salt lake city the "rich" neighborhoods have better roads and they are always plowed first.

If someone's parents are paying super high property taxes but getting zero benefits for them, it's probably worth a trip to city hall to get an explanation.