Quote:
Originally Posted by nik-
How do people seriously type ridiculousness like this up and think that they're making good points?
|
I think the example's cited were extreme, but the concepts had merit...
1) In a society where taxation is used to fund public goods, some people benefit a lot more than others for any single good due to differences in factors such as inclinations, wealth, and free time. People with more free time can spend more time at the library. Poor people can't enjoy arenas if they can't afford skates or skating lessons.
2) The extent of public benefit associated with many public goods is subjective.
For example, the city and province subsidise fine arts and establishments such as the zoo because there is a subjective public benefit, cultural and educational component. Additional facilities subsidised include public pools and hockey arenas - to promote healthy and active life styles and culture. And by subsidising such establishments, participation is cheaper than it otherwise would be. Public art is free, because the city paid for it. Ice time is cheaper because its subsidised. So too is going to the leisure centre and the zoo.
Likewise, if a new arena was subsidised, it might also be cheaper to attend events there than if it was fully privately funded facility (for example through a lower ticket tax). That includes concerts, flames games, and other events. And, like many of the establishments cited above, a new arena does promote culture and sport and active lifestyles.
Additionally some people highly value the cultural component of public art; many others do not care about public art, but they still end up paying for it through taxes. Others highly value the culture component of a pro-hockey team - so why shouldn't it also be subsidised?
The central library is another example of this - the public benefit of libraries is an easy argument to make. The benefit is obvious. But why does the central library needed to cost $245m and be visually stunning? Much more difficult argument to make. I bet a facility that was less visually stunning could have been built for substantially less, while still providing the same vital public benefit that libraries provide.