[ale] Defeated by the offshoring of America....

[George Carless]

Well, as someone whose lifestyle matches his name, I feel at least
somewhat qualified to speak on the matter of the relationship between
vehicle ownership and employment.  And, in my experience, it's *not*
'almost impossible' to have a good job without a vehicle.  Admittedly,
I've lived and worked in large or medium-sized cities over here, and I've
no doubt that the situation is more difficult elsewhere.  Atlanta, though,
is certainly no mecca for the pedestrian; and yet it's still possible to
get about on public transport.

The motor car is, of course, a symbol for America, and its use is deeply
ingrained into the American psyche.  But it should be noted that many
people over here seem to consider it more important to have a big car than
to develop their lifestyles in more significant ways; and so it's not
uncommon to see families living in trailers with multiple cars outside.
To each their own, but I would personally question the notion that car
ownership is, in fact, quite so essential as all that: it buys a certain
level of freedom, certainly, but again I'd say that we shouldn't mistake
luxuries for necessities.

Consider, too, that the general attitude leads us into a vicious circle:
the standard of public transport is low because everyone drives and
there's no money going into mass transit.  Everyone drives because the
standard of public transport is low.

To return to the main topic: I can't imagine anyone's all that happy with
taxation.  But then, nobody seems to complain too much at, say, the levels
of expenditure on 'weapons of mass destruction' that are a chief area of
spending.  (And no, I'm not trying to stir up a separate pro/anti-military
debate.)  I think that there's a case to be made for preventing government
checks in many of these areas, towards a true laissez-faire economy;
however, when it comes down to it most people *want* the government to
intefere in the areas that suit them: in my case, public transportation;
in others' cases, in subsidies on fuel.

Besides which, the government *isn't* subsidising farmers for the mere
sake of costing you money: one would presume that everything is done in
the interests of boosting the economy as a whole - and I'd suggest that
Americans pay *significantly* less than most people when it comes to
taxes.  I shudder when I think of Britain's Value Added (sales) Tax, which
currently lies at 17.5% -- a very significant amount.

That's not to say that I support daft subsidies -- the European Union has
done some pretty stupid things when it comes to agricultural subsidies and
the like.  But it's naive to think that things are 'simple' or that the
government's just out to rob us all.

--George

 On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, Drag0n wrote:

> in the majority of the US, its almost impossible to have a good job
> without a vehicle, or a residence. i am not upset with ppl's money going
> to the vehicle or the house, i am upset with how much of that money
> actualy goes to the government through various taxes. (Gas, title,
> morgage, utilities, etc.) if it werent for the high taxation for money
> that is probably going to other countries in the form of aid and grants
> that 9 times out of 10 never makes it to the citizens level, government
> pork to pay farmers NOT to grow crops, a one income household could be
> common. as it is now, its almost a requirement to have 2 working parties
> in a house if you want to survive. ( trust me, i know this one first
> hand.)

_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Ale at ale.org
http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale