Max B. Sawicky wrote: > Like every other theorem, [Tiebout's theorem] depends on restrictive, > unrealistic assumptions that I've forgotten.<
> Contra your statement, however, everyone doesn't necessarily want to pay the > same for public services. I wasn't saying that tastes don't matter. Rather, I don't think taste differences are the main story. > The clumping together by income does not refute Tiebout. I wasn't trying to refute Tiebout as much as propose an alternative view. > You could say > their income reflects their willingness to pay. It also minimizes their tax > price for services. In this context, in principle anyone would want to > exclude anybody with lesser income from their tax jurisdiction, since the > latter would enjoy a distributional advantage in taxes-v-services. Or you > would seek a jurisdiction where everybody was richer. As Mark Twain said, > you wouldn't want to join a club that would have you as a member. Max, I think we've reached a point of FUNDAMENTAL DISAGREEMENT. You're paraphrasing Groucho Marx, not Twain. -- Jim Devine / "There can be no real individual freedom in the presence of economic insecurity." -- Chester Bowles
