Robert points out this commentary on another study comparing relatively low-tax districts to relatively high-tax ones, this time within the U.S. alone. And once again, areas that prioritize low taxes over all else turn out to be worse off for the choice - in this case posting poorer health and education and greater juvenile delinquency than ones which recognize the value of investing in their citizens.
Not that it should come as a surprise that contrary to the usual conservative whine about government doing more harm than good, the benefits of action (and concurrent costs of inaction) strongly justify a significant government presence on a fair comparison. But sadly, that fact all too often gets lost in the current political debate in both the U.S. and Canada. And hopefully added recognition of the comparative costs and benefits will lead to more discussion of what government can do to help its citizens, and less as to how it can avoid doing anything.
No comments:
Post a Comment