> Belief in the postulate that user fees make things more efficient
> and that lack of them leads to disaster is an argument opposed to
> social-democratic programs all across the board.
I don't know where it came from, but it's clearly wrong :)
I don't have a full theory about user taxes (in particular, I'm not sure where I stand on "sin taxes"), but it seems like just about any time they come up, there's usually a mistake made in determining who a "user" is. My favorite example is bridge tolls. They are simply awful.
- They cause congestion [free days don't have congestion] - Congestion causes a LOT of pollution - Congestion is a net drain on GDP typically by a factor of 100 over the net toll collected - They are quite inefficient: salaries and benefits for toll takers are pretty high (practically combat pay), maintenance of the equipment and facilities -- 40% of revenue is a "good" operation ... there are many that are much, much worse - "E-Z-Pass" and the like have made this equation WORSE because they lower the amount collected by the bridge authority ...
And yet, who is the "user" of a bridge?
- Is it the person whose goods are arriving by truck as transported across the bridge? - Is it the family of the person who works on the other side who live away from the core in more affordable housing? - Is it the employer of the worker who commutes across it?
I may be biassed, because i live in California (the birthplace of the "FREEway") but bridges are public goods: everyone benefits from a bridge. The bridge needs to be maintained, just like any piece of infrastructure. Who should pay for it? Everyone who benefits from it. Which is exactly: everyone.
/jordan