-By Warner Todd Huston
Imagine you are the head of a company that loses a multi-million dollar lawsuit. Then imagine the public outcry if you announced that you were going to raise your prices to pay off the lawsuit. Would the public get incensed? Would you lose business? Likely both. It’s even somewhat likely in this litigious climate in which we live that the decision to raise prices to payoff the lawsuit would spawn yet another lawsuit against you. Ah, but we are talking business, aren’t we?
Now imagine that you are a city government and a court finds out that you’ve ripped off hundreds of thousands of your city water customers by wildly overcharging them for installing new fire hydrants. Imagine that you’ve been ordered by the courts to rebate $22 million to those city water customers. And then imagine that you announce that the rebates will be paid for by taxing the city water at an even higher rate than before.
In other words, you, the city, will be expecting the water customers to pay for their own rebates by charging them higher rates to fund that same rebate. Yes, the same “customers” that have no competition for water and no choice but to pay through the nose will be paying themselves their own rebate.
Well, then welcome to Seattle where this is precisely the case. And also welcome to a perfect example of why government is legalized theft.
Now, let’s understand exactly what a court ordered rebate, or the loss of a lawsuit is supposed to be. A rebate is the idea of refunding money to a customer fraudulently charged. The loss of a lawsuit is supposed to be a punishment.
If you as a customer are told you are getting a “rebate” but are then told that your prices are going up to pay for the “rebate” then you simply are not getting a rebate. You are paying more in to get it right back in the form of a “rebate.” This is no rebate at all.
And worse, does anyone really expect that once this faux “rebate” is “paid for” by the higher rates that the city will then lower the water bills? Or isn’t it far more likely that the rates will stay artificially high forever more?
In the world in which real people live, a lawsuit is paid by profits. Prices aren’t wildly raised to pay for a punishment. Competition would preclude such a measure, in any case. If one company raises prices to pay off a lawsuit, it would lose business to competitors that have retained the lower prices. So, the loss of a lawsuit is suitable punishment by hurting the bottom line and teaching the company a lesson against doing whatever it was that caused the lawsuit in the first place. This is the ideal situation or the way it is supposed to work.
But not if you’re government. If you’re government and you get sued no lesson need be learned at all. You’ll just force the very people who you wronged to pay for your transgressions, further wronging them.
Government is pernicious in the most pure definition of the word.
(Image credit: mylegaladvance.com)
____________
Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites such as newsbusters.org, Human Events Magazine, townhall.com, New Media Journal, Men’s News Daily and the New Media Alliance among many, many others. Additionally, he has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs to discuss his opinion editorials and current events. He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the new book “Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture” which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is also the owner and operator of publiusforum.com. Feel free to contact him with any comments or questions : EMAIL Warner Todd Huston
Fair Use: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site/blog for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.