16 ms·

An Analysis of Motivations for Income Redistribution [pdf]

41 points by jackgavigan 10y ago

chickenfries 10y ago
What is this "Majority of calls" you refer to in the title? Why not use the title of the paper? If anything, they found that calls against redistribution of income are most likely motivated by self interest.
- randcraw 10y ago
  I was going to make the same observation. But I see the headline has been changed, so now the point is moot.
- sctb 10y ago
  We updated the title from “Majority of calls for income redistribution are motivated by self-interest”, which was editorialized.
dax1928 10y ago
Some people have pride in needing less. I have always been paranoid that I overstay my welcome, or that I'm too needy. I obsess over efficiency, and strive to require less to function than the others around me. I seek to be a provider, not a consumer - that sort of reputation is an ideal (especially here in the South) and proves that I am stronger. It is a constant competition that ultimately enable my species (specifically the environment in which it dwells) to have more resources to work with. Do not fall victim to envy and anger at the "one-percent". They have great responsibility, and there will exist a balance if they do not properly manage their resources (not necessarily in the form of redistribution). Just find the humor in the silly things money buys that only offer the utility of announcing wealth.
tjic 10y ago
"People like free shit." How hard is that? The abstract says it in a bit more formal academic tones: " The findings suggest that for most people, the motivation for redistribution is financial self-interest". But put it to a vote to pretty much any group of people, at any time, in any place, and they'd prefer to steal from their neighbors than they would to work themselves. The trick of civilization is curb this impulse, thus allowing the generation of positive sum games. As Milton Friedman once said (and apologies for butchering this; it's from memory): the wonder of capitalism is that it's the only system that restrains the capitalists. ...by which he means that every society has rapacious take-no-prisoners people. The trick is to channel that into METAPHORIC rape and take-no-prisoners, and away from the literal implementation.
- fnlkewnf 10y ago
  That's a really nice Randian narrative you've got there, but the reality is that we're trapped in a demand-limited economic state and it's slowly getting worse. At some point you have to stop coddling the wealthy with more and more handouts, and undo the damage.
  - tjic 10y ago
    Ad hominems aside, what statement that I made do you suggest is false?
    - fnlkewnf 10y ago
      I made no such attack. You clearly identify with Randian ideals. I find it extremely ironic how you're so sensitive about logical fallacies when you start out by completely mischaracterizing your opposition with an offensive strawman argument. I mean, come on.
      - dpeterson 10y ago
        And you think you win the argument immediately just by labeling the poster "Randian". As if anyone saying anything remotely un-leftist is some uncaring, selfish nut job. Maybe pick up an Ayn Rand book some time and actually read it.
        fnlkewnf 10y ago
        If the original poster considers the word "Randian" offensive then perhaps they shouldn't post catchphrases like "people want free shit" taken from alt-right image macros.
  - adrr 10y ago
    There is income distribution going on and its to the upper elite who pay very little taxes. We have a regressive tax system disguised as progressive. So hedgefund manager can bring 8 figures of income but only pay 23%. That its the upper limit, when we actually get to see into the upper riches taxes they pay less. Take a look John Kerry's returns. 5.5M income and he only paid 15.5% in taxes. Its crazy we penalize earned income with a higher burden of taxes.
Eridrus 10y ago
I think it's an interesting theory, but I don't find myself very convinced. Competing hypothesis: People's motivations are less driven by self-interest when the discussion is an abstract one and more driven by self-interest when there are real losses and gains to be had. It still has a self-interest component, but now the claim is that it is those who do not want redistribution acting out of self interest. Self-interest is clearly a component here, but singling it out as a motivation for wanting redistribution makes for certain specific arguments. I'm also not sure how transferable the results around distribution in a game are for questions with societal implications; I know these sorts of experiments are common in psychology, but I wonder if the limited scope of this game means people are more willing to take everything they've earned since many of the reasons to support redistribution do not exist in a game setting, e.g. real suffering, not wanting violent revolution, etc.
hasbroslasher 10y ago
Of course desire for redistribution is motivated by self-interest! Why should laypeople starve while an ever tinier class of people continues to own and profit from the world? The irony of the "they just want free shit" people is the sad truth that the wealthy are constantly acting out of political self-interest as well, just that their interests are lessening the government's interference with their finances. The irony I always see in these scenarios is affluent people's short term memory about history - the invading barbarians, the destruction of the aristocrats' temples, the brutal dictatorships that gained hold from popular outrage about the bourgeois. There's an easy way to prevent this kind of thing, and it's by fostering a society where people can't get angry enough (or powerful enough) to do something totally stupid. A second American revolution seems unlikely as of today, but our current political landscape is telling about how royally broken the world is soon to become.
- DougWebb 10y ago
  I don't think a second American revolution is unlikely; I think it's inevitable if conditions don't change. I don't think it'll happen today, but eventually it will. Your historical examples are spot-on; every civilization in history that survives long enough eventually has all of its wealth and power vested in the hands of a small elite, and then there is a revolution that destroyed the civilization. The only long-term survivors seem to be the civilizations with strong gifting economies, or where the overall civilization is so poor that there's very little difference in wealth between the poorest member and the ruler. Those who oppose Income Redistribution seem to think all of their wealth is going to be taken away. Very few advocates actually want that. I think most of the issues of wealth inequality could be solved if the wealthy were just a little less wealthy, and got richer a little more slowly, than they currently do. They'd still be quite wealthy, and probably wouldn't even notice the difference as far as their lifestyle and security. But everyone else would feel a lot more secure and have more opportunities, and that's what will prevent the revolution.
  - grb423 10y ago
    I hear much concern, not necessarily from you, about the effects on productivity of taking. Do you fear any effects on people's psyche, self-esteem for instance, of giving? Beloved FDR, in his state 1935 SOTU address said "To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit." http://www.albany.edu/faculty/gz580/his101/su35fdr.html http://www.albany.edu/faculty/gz580/his101/su35fdr.html I worry that hundreds if not thousands of years of various types of market economics has ingrained much into our humanity, and that progressive notions like UBI and redistribution will have deleterious unintended consequences.
Mendenhall 10y ago
So in earnings known and earnings unknown, both groups predominately looked after their own self interests. Thats always the predominate factor in groups.
n-exploit 10y ago
I'd be interested in seeing a study on the distribution of philanthropic efforts among the wealthy between domestic and international causes. I fall on the side of wanting the government "out of my pockets" because I question the overall effectiveness of domestic programmes in helping "the poor". I may be ignorant, but like to think that international causes do a better job of decreasing wealth inequality by supporting those at the very lowest end of the spectrum in third world countries. Call me an asshole, but understanding that no system is perfect, because America has one of the better social/government systems in favor of economic mobility, government use of taxpayer dollars for domestic programs targeting income redistribution should be limited. While I do think that there are worthwhile programmes that support the poor domestically, my position on income redistribution can be more easily understood when looking at wealth inequality at a global scale.
- sharemywin 10y ago
  Here's in interesting ted talk on an international aid issue that not talked about alot: https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/the-hidden-reason-for-poverty-the-world-needs-to-address-now-mark-haugen-ted-talk-krsdl/ https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/the-hidden-reaso...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
andrewclunn 10y ago
Needs a follow up where people are playing for their whole families and the ones making less for some reason have more kids. In other words, trying to extrapolate from this to larger societal class conflicts misses a whole slew of other issues.
grb423 10y ago
If I get a check for X and my cardiologist gets a check for X as well why would anyone put in the work to become a cardiologist? For his love of mankind? For social status? Serious question. Didn't the 20th-century Marxists try this?
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  You get a check for X. The cardiologist gets a check for X, and also gets the income from working as a cardiologist. He/she then pays taxes on that income, which leaves him/her on net probably at least somewhat worse off than today, but still better off than you, who only get a check for X. It's that "better off" part that motivates the cardiologist.
  - grb423 10y ago
    Do you think he would vote for that? Or, like similar systems in the last century, would some, let's say state encouragement, be required?
    - aninhumer 10y ago
      No he wouldn't vote for that, but what does that have to do with your original question? And I feel like you're being very disingenuous by implying that him not getting what he voted for is equivalent to communism.
      - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
        It isn't the original question, but I thought it was a legitimate one. The cardiologists and their like can be outvoted. That's how it goes in a democracy. But the number of people who lose on net may be greater than the number of people who win on net. So the only way it gets implemented may be through... let's say "undemocratic" means. Note well: I'm not advocating this. I'm just pointing out that this may be the way the politics works out.
        10y ago
jellicle 10y ago
The current economic system is heavily redistributive. It works very strongly to redistribute wealth and income from those who have little to those who have a lot. The main function of two whole branches of government is maintaining the wealth of people who have a lot. What people are advocating for is less income redistribution to the top. It is worth noting that if you ask the public how wealth is distributed currently, and how it should be, the U.S. public desires a sort of socialist utopia, more equal than Sweden: http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton%20ariely.pdf http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton%20ariely.pdf Note that people prefer that socialist utopia regardless of their personal wealth and regardless of their political orientation. EVERYONE prefers that. There is complete Democrat-Republican rich-poor consensus that the United States would be better off if it were much more equal. In the U.S. at least, and probably elsewhere, most of the opposition to social welfare policies is rooted in racism. The best way to derail any proposed social welfare idea is to talk about all the black people that will be helped by it. This opposition has nothing do with how the individual will be affected by the proposed policies in a monetary sense.

41 points by jackgavigan 10y ago

What is this "Majority of calls" you refer to in the title? Why not use the title of the paper? If anything, they found that calls against redistribution of income are most likely motivated by self interest.

randcraw 10y ago
I was going to make the same observation. But I see the headline has been changed, so now the point is moot.
sctb 10y ago
We updated the title from “Majority of calls for income redistribution are motivated by self-interest”, which was editorialized.

dax1928 10y ago

Some people have pride in needing less. I have always been paranoid that I overstay my welcome, or that I'm too needy. I obsess over efficiency, and strive to require less to function than the others around me. I seek to be a provider, not a consumer - that sort of reputation is an ideal (especially here in the South) and proves that I am stronger. It is a constant competition that ultimately enable my species (specifically the environment in which it dwells) to have more resources to work with. Do not fall victim to envy and anger at the "one-percent". They have great responsibility, and there will exist a balance if they do not properly manage their resources (not necessarily in the form of redistribution). Just find the humor in the silly things money buys that only offer the utility of announcing wealth.

tjic 10y ago

"People like free shit." How hard is that? The abstract says it in a bit more formal academic tones: " The findings suggest that for most people, the motivation for redistribution is financial self-interest". But put it to a vote to pretty much any group of people, at any time, in any place, and they'd prefer to steal from their neighbors than they would to work themselves. The trick of civilization is curb this impulse, thus allowing the generation of positive sum games. As Milton Friedman once said (and apologies for butchering this; it's from memory): the wonder of capitalism is that it's the only system that restrains the capitalists. ...by which he means that every society has rapacious take-no-prisoners people. The trick is to channel that into METAPHORIC rape and take-no-prisoners, and away from the literal implementation.

fnlkewnf 10y ago
That's a really nice Randian narrative you've got there, but the reality is that we're trapped in a demand-limited economic state and it's slowly getting worse. At some point you have to stop coddling the wealthy with more and more handouts, and undo the damage.
- tjic 10y ago
  Ad hominems aside, what statement that I made do you suggest is false?
  - fnlkewnf 10y ago
    I made no such attack. You clearly identify with Randian ideals. I find it extremely ironic how you're so sensitive about logical fallacies when you start out by completely mischaracterizing your opposition with an offensive strawman argument. I mean, come on.
    - dpeterson 10y ago
      And you think you win the argument immediately just by labeling the poster "Randian". As if anyone saying anything remotely un-leftist is some uncaring, selfish nut job. Maybe pick up an Ayn Rand book some time and actually read it.
      - fnlkewnf 10y ago
        If the original poster considers the word "Randian" offensive then perhaps they shouldn't post catchphrases like "people want free shit" taken from alt-right image macros.
- adrr 10y ago
  There is income distribution going on and its to the upper elite who pay very little taxes. We have a regressive tax system disguised as progressive. So hedgefund manager can bring 8 figures of income but only pay 23%. That its the upper limit, when we actually get to see into the upper riches taxes they pay less. Take a look John Kerry's returns. 5.5M income and he only paid 15.5% in taxes. Its crazy we penalize earned income with a higher burden of taxes.

Eridrus 10y ago

I think it's an interesting theory, but I don't find myself very convinced. Competing hypothesis: People's motivations are less driven by self-interest when the discussion is an abstract one and more driven by self-interest when there are real losses and gains to be had. It still has a self-interest component, but now the claim is that it is those who do not want redistribution acting out of self interest. Self-interest is clearly a component here, but singling it out as a motivation for wanting redistribution makes for certain specific arguments. I'm also not sure how transferable the results around distribution in a game are for questions with societal implications; I know these sorts of experiments are common in psychology, but I wonder if the limited scope of this game means people are more willing to take everything they've earned since many of the reasons to support redistribution do not exist in a game setting, e.g. real suffering, not wanting violent revolution, etc.

hasbroslasher 10y ago

Of course desire for redistribution is motivated by self-interest! Why should laypeople starve while an ever tinier class of people continues to own and profit from the world? The irony of the "they just want free shit" people is the sad truth that the wealthy are constantly acting out of political self-interest as well, just that their interests are lessening the government's interference with their finances. The irony I always see in these scenarios is affluent people's short term memory about history - the invading barbarians, the destruction of the aristocrats' temples, the brutal dictatorships that gained hold from popular outrage about the bourgeois. There's an easy way to prevent this kind of thing, and it's by fostering a society where people can't get angry enough (or powerful enough) to do something totally stupid. A second American revolution seems unlikely as of today, but our current political landscape is telling about how royally broken the world is soon to become.

DougWebb 10y ago
I don't think a second American revolution is unlikely; I think it's inevitable if conditions don't change. I don't think it'll happen today, but eventually it will. Your historical examples are spot-on; every civilization in history that survives long enough eventually has all of its wealth and power vested in the hands of a small elite, and then there is a revolution that destroyed the civilization. The only long-term survivors seem to be the civilizations with strong gifting economies, or where the overall civilization is so poor that there's very little difference in wealth between the poorest member and the ruler. Those who oppose Income Redistribution seem to think all of their wealth is going to be taken away. Very few advocates actually want that. I think most of the issues of wealth inequality could be solved if the wealthy were just a little less wealthy, and got richer a little more slowly, than they currently do. They'd still be quite wealthy, and probably wouldn't even notice the difference as far as their lifestyle and security. But everyone else would feel a lot more secure and have more opportunities, and that's what will prevent the revolution.
- grb423 10y ago
  I hear much concern, not necessarily from you, about the effects on productivity of taking. Do you fear any effects on people's psyche, self-esteem for instance, of giving? Beloved FDR, in his state 1935 SOTU address said "To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit." http://www.albany.edu/faculty/gz580/his101/su35fdr.html http://www.albany.edu/faculty/gz580/his101/su35fdr.html I worry that hundreds if not thousands of years of various types of market economics has ingrained much into our humanity, and that progressive notions like UBI and redistribution will have deleterious unintended consequences.

Mendenhall 10y ago

So in earnings known and earnings unknown, both groups predominately looked after their own self interests. Thats always the predominate factor in groups.

n-exploit 10y ago

I'd be interested in seeing a study on the distribution of philanthropic efforts among the wealthy between domestic and international causes. I fall on the side of wanting the government "out of my pockets" because I question the overall effectiveness of domestic programmes in helping "the poor". I may be ignorant, but like to think that international causes do a better job of decreasing wealth inequality by supporting those at the very lowest end of the spectrum in third world countries. Call me an asshole, but understanding that no system is perfect, because America has one of the better social/government systems in favor of economic mobility, government use of taxpayer dollars for domestic programs targeting income redistribution should be limited. While I do think that there are worthwhile programmes that support the poor domestically, my position on income redistribution can be more easily understood when looking at wealth inequality at a global scale.

sharemywin 10y ago
Here's in interesting ted talk on an international aid issue that not talked about alot: https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/the-hidden-reason-for-poverty-the-world-needs-to-address-now-mark-haugen-ted-talk-krsdl/ https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/the-hidden-reaso...

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

andrewclunn 10y ago

Needs a follow up where people are playing for their whole families and the ones making less for some reason have more kids. In other words, trying to extrapolate from this to larger societal class conflicts misses a whole slew of other issues.

grb423 10y ago

If I get a check for X and my cardiologist gets a check for X as well why would anyone put in the work to become a cardiologist? For his love of mankind? For social status? Serious question. Didn't the 20th-century Marxists try this?

AnimalMuppet 10y ago
You get a check for X. The cardiologist gets a check for X, and also gets the income from working as a cardiologist. He/she then pays taxes on that income, which leaves him/her on net probably at least somewhat worse off than today, but still better off than you, who only get a check for X. It's that "better off" part that motivates the cardiologist.
- grb423 10y ago
  Do you think he would vote for that? Or, like similar systems in the last century, would some, let's say state encouragement, be required?
  - aninhumer 10y ago
    No he wouldn't vote for that, but what does that have to do with your original question? And I feel like you're being very disingenuous by implying that him not getting what he voted for is equivalent to communism.
    - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
      It isn't the original question, but I thought it was a legitimate one. The cardiologists and their like can be outvoted. That's how it goes in a democracy. But the number of people who lose on net may be greater than the number of people who win on net. So the only way it gets implemented may be through... let's say "undemocratic" means. Note well: I'm not advocating this. I'm just pointing out that this may be the way the politics works out.
      - 10y ago

jellicle 10y ago

The current economic system is heavily redistributive. It works very strongly to redistribute wealth and income from those who have little to those who have a lot. The main function of two whole branches of government is maintaining the wealth of people who have a lot. What people are advocating for is less income redistribution to the top. It is worth noting that if you ask the public how wealth is distributed currently, and how it should be, the U.S. public desires a sort of socialist utopia, more equal than Sweden: http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton%20ariely.pdf http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton%20ariely.pdf Note that people prefer that socialist utopia regardless of their personal wealth and regardless of their political orientation. EVERYONE prefers that. There is complete Democrat-Republican rich-poor consensus that the United States would be better off if it were much more equal. In the U.S. at least, and probably elsewhere, most of the opposition to social welfare policies is rooted in racism. The best way to derail any proposed social welfare idea is to talk about all the black people that will be helped by it. This opposition has nothing do with how the individual will be affected by the proposed policies in a monetary sense.