Yesterday I went to Bluesfest in Grant park, and one of the announcers said something that bothered me. During his introduction to B.B. King he said that the City of Chicago had been "Giving us Bluesfest for over 30 years", which brought loud applause from the audience. I like the Blues Festival, and the other large events that are held in Chicago's Grant Park, but the idea that it's a "free gift" from the government is one that bothers me.
According to Melodytrip.com the Chicago Blues Festival is "the largest free-admission blues festival in the world". While the admission to the event is free, the cost of putting it on certainly isn't. From what I can gather from the City of Chicago site, this and other events held around the City are organized by the City of Chicago Mayor's Office of Special events. According to the 2008 Preliminary budget for the City of Chicago (page 23), this office of the Mayor is receiving $6 Million dollars this year. While the cost of the events subsidized by corporate sponsors, the budget of the office organizing the events is paid for by tax-payers. Anything that you have to pay for, is hardly a free gift.
As the government grows in size and scope I keep hearing about more things that are "free" services from the Government. It bothers me that so many people just accept this at face value: Free parks, free festivals, free schools, free health care. There's no such thing as a free lunch, and this is especially true when referring to the government. The source of the governments revenue is always taxes and fines, which are paid for by citizens. Therefore, when anything the government does is called "free" what they really mean is "funded by taxes". If we accept this language of "Free" as being appropriate, we're accepting the idea that the Government is a benevolent donor that "gives" us things, and that we should be thankful for these gifts. The truth is that any time the government "gives" something, it first had to take from someone. In the case of the Mayor's Office of Special Events, the bill is footed by the Hotel Operator's Occupation Tax: The State of Illinois Hotel Operators' Occupation Tax is imposed on receipts from the occupation of renting, leasing, or letting rooms to individuals occupying such accommodations for less than 30 consecutive days.
So rather than thanking the government for its generous donation, we should be thanking the tax-payers that were forced to pay an additional 6% on their hotel bill for these events.
Monday, June 09, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Is your problem here with a lack of understanding the economics or the economics situation of how government conduct large projects. For the situation of the blues fest, do you believe that the situation generates increased revenue from tourism higher then the tax for those hotels? I believe similar cases have been made for some of the other things you named and how subsidizing effects a economy as a whole.
No Justin, I understand it fine. My problem here is with the idea that the government is a benevolent organization that "gives" us something. If these events generate more in taxes than they cost, that doesn't mean that they were free, it means that the officials setting them up aren't incompetent.
If I came to your house, took half your stuff, sold it, and bought you a bicycle, would you consider it to be a free bike?
I believe in the idea behind "double speak" - that changing the words you use to describe things influences the way you think and what you believe - then you can see the danger in this particular usage of the shorthand "free".
Is it hugely important? Overall, there's quite a few things that are more important to worry about. However, I still think that it's important to not fall into the usage of "free" for "tax-payer funded" because it promotes the cultural idea of the government as benefactor, as opposed to servant.
The example I see more often nowadays is in the health care debate, when people invoke Canada's "free health care". Next time someone says that point out that it's not free, that it's paid by taxes, and if your experiences are like mine you'll see that people don't remember that part of the equation.
Not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things, but still a pet peeve of mine.
"I actually don't think most people are as naive as you are suggesting in this case."
I think that you might be giving them too much credit. Sure they might actually understand that money is spent. But they don't make the association. How many people complain that they pay too much in taxes in that same breath that they complain about the lack of insert service here. (Not including complaints about Chicago Cook County HR problems)
I think it might even be worse. People start to feel entitled to services. We should have "free" health care because we "deserve" it. Or because "I pay taxes". Yeah, how much is your contribution to the total? Is it representative of the services that you use? Considering that most of the tax income comes from the wealthiest people who don't use as many services (not counting Tony Rezko) it probably doesn't match up.
Post a Comment