[yummyfajitas]

Because once these services become good enough, there is little advantage to spending more on them. If you already have virtually no crime, why bother spending more money on police? If the roads get you where you want to go, what is the advantage of building more?

I can see the advantage for politicians and public sector unions. But not for taxpayers.

[guelo]

Right, your ideology prevents you from seeing any good ever coming from government. You don't want better government, only less. In the real world adults realize that government is a necessary part of a functioning civil society and like anything else you get what you pay for.

I am a liberal and believe that government should provide more social services. But I also agree with many conservatives that there is waste, inefficiency and corruption in government, just like in any other large organization. It would be a better country if Republicans took this passion and tried to make government better, more efficient, more business-like, etc. But instead they only ever want to tear government down and give the money to their rich daddies so John Galt can save us all.

[yummyfajitas]

You seem to have confused me with some kind of anarchist, or perhaps Glenn Beck. I didn't make any point about what services should be provided, one way or the other.

All I did was point out that the cost of paving 1 mile of road does not increase just because a bunch of rich microsofties moved into town. Perhaps you could remind me when I advocated against government providing police protection or road paving?

[timr]

"All I did was point out that the cost of paving 1 mile of road does not increase just because a bunch of rich microsofties moved into town."

That doesn't even come close to passing the smell test. An influx of rich Microsofties drive up the price for everything, from roads to radishes. A mile of road costs more to build post-Microsoft because land costs more, labor costs more (they need to be paid enough to live approximately near the Microsofties!), and supplies cost more. And I don't know if you've heard the news, but Bellevue isn't a cheap place to live!

Of course, that's not even counting the indirect costs: rich Microsofties like to live in big McMansions in the suburbs, which require not only many miles of new roads, but also new police departments, firemen, sewers, traffic signals, new highway lanes, gas, water and electric lines, etc. The cost increases created by an influx of rich people are non-linear.

[yummyfajitas]

Land and labor may cost more, but not linearly with average income. A road worker or teacher's salary doesn't double just because a bunch of miscrosofties doubled the average income.

Manhattan has incomes about 3x the national average. By your logic, the salary for fast food workers in Manhattan should be about $30/hour, a burrito costing $3 outside the city should cost $9 and a macbook should cost $3000.

The indirect costs you list are simply the costs of having new people. They indicate that total spending should increase when population does, not per-capita spending. Rich people may require slightly more roads, but they also never use welfare, medicaid, visit the ER under a phony name, and they rarely commit crimes.

[timr]

So now your argument has gone from "the cost does not increase" to "the cost does not double"? I think you've conceded my essential point -- costs go up when a bunch of rich Microsofties move to town. Now you're just arguing to argue.

And no, it isn't just a matter of per-capita spending: when rich people move into an area, costs go up more rapidly than when poor people move into an area. It's the reason you see cheaper rents in the Mission than you do in Pac Heights.

[guelo]

It was when you implied that any government spending beyond some picked-by-you minimum level of service can only ever be waste for corrupt politicians and government employees.

[Bricejm]

Crime will always be a part of society. Roads fall apart and need repairs. An increasing marginal tax system maintains stability.

[yummyfajitas]

Try to pay attention. I'm not arguing against an increasing marginal tax system.

I'm arguing that tax revenue should not grow with income level, they should grow with population [1]. Crime is a part of society, but increasing income levels do not increase crime or increase the cost of road repairs.

Take your favorite progressive tax system. Multiply all tax rates by 1/2. Your new tax system is just as progressive as the old one.

[1] That's my leading order argument. As a second order correction, poor people tend to cost more money than rich people.

[Bricejm]

So what you're saying is as the average income increases, we should decrease the tax rate to maintain a level amount of tax revenue? Then as population grows their taxes should offset their cost? Maybe in a perfect world, but you can't compare our population to a fixed cost.