5 ms·

>"An alternative would be a country full of people so similar to you that the average person would feel like their countrymen might as well be them." What? If

by nonbel 8y ago

>"An alternative would be a country full of people so similar to you that the average person would feel like their countrymen might as well be them." What? If people really felt that way there would be no need for taxes. If you have a lack of self-interest (or the sense of "self" is altered to refer to the group) you would freely give money to each other. The only time taxes are required is when people will not freely give money for a project. That is literally the only reason taxes exist. Nothing is stopping people from donating to the government. In fact, I was just thinking the other day that 50 million trump voters could donate $100 each to "build the wall" and be done with it. You could probably even donate $25/year for four years. $5 billion is nothing at those scales yet there is all this bickering (supposedly) about it.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Retric 8y ago
Just because everyone is like me is not enough to for voluntary payment to work. The issue is when people can not pay and get what they want they will simply not pay. If me and 10,000 people want a waste treatment plant we can individually chip in. But, in that case defecting would be so common that it's unlikely to be built. Or, we can vote to make payment mandatory and get what most people want, but nobody wants to pay for. Now, if you disagree feel free to start a build a wall fund. It can work for specific kinds of things where donations feel good.
- nonbel 8y ago
  >"If me and 10,000 people want a waste treatment plant we can individually chip in. But, in that case defecting would be so common that it's unlikely to be built." Ok, but my point is limited to the fact that taxes only serve a purpose when people will not voluntarily fund a project. So this agrees with me. It delusional to think taxes are something more than a government taking your money and spending it on stuff (which may or may not benefit you). >"Now, if you disagree feel free to start a build a wall fund. It can work for specific kinds of things where donations feel good." I could personally care less whether there is a wall or not. It seems irrelevant beyond as a symbol that immigration laws are being enforced.
  - Retric 8y ago
    The distinction I am going for is people who would donate if and only if their donation makes a difference to project completion. If you can save your 100$ and still get what you want then that’s different than your 100$ being what allows something to happen. My 100$ is not going to cure cancer so I don’t donate to cancer research. But, if I knew it would make the difference between a cure and no cure, then I would very much donate 100$ to end cancer.
    - nonbel 8y ago
      >"The distinction I am going for is people who would donate if and only if their donation makes a difference to project completion. If you can save your 100$ and still get what you want then that’s different than your 100$ being what allows something to happen." So you claim people won't voluntarily fund a project like a wastewater treatment plant since it doesn't make them feel rewarded or some other mental thing. Fine, doesn't matter why they won't do it. My point is that's the only time taxes are required to get a project done. >"My 100$ is not going to cure cancer so I don’t donate to cancer research. But, if I knew it would make the difference between a cure and no cure, then I would very much donate 100$ to end cancer." Even the NIH admits medical researchers waste 90% of the funds they pass out (I would put it much higher), so yea there really is no reason to give them any more money: https://nihrecord.nih.gov/newsletters/2016/07_01_2016/story3.htm https://nihrecord.nih.gov/newsletters/2016/07_01_2016/story3...
      - Retric 8y ago
        Cancer research is only one example, a new road also requires a minimum amount of money. Many people would happily pay for their chunk of a new road/bridge if it made the difference between having it and not because the cost is less than the utility. But, you don’t see charities to build roads because that model does not work in that context. As to efficiency that’s not really relevant. What I pay to see a movie is divorced from what it takes to make the movie. All I care about is the utility.
        8y ago
saas_sam 8y ago
>>The only time taxes are required is when people will not freely give money for a project. That is literally the only reason taxes exist. Nothing is stopping people from donating to the government. I like this point and I make it a lot to my Democrat friends who insist rich people should pay more taxes. These people use the fact that they are themselves rich to support their argument ("I should pay more taxes too, you see!"). I always ask them, "Then why don't you? The Treasury accepts donations, you know." It would be a persuasive gesture for folks like Bill Gates and Bernie Sanders who are insisting their tax bracket should be higher to write big checks to the Treasury for what they think is morally right. But of course, they won't. Nor should they -- top charities deliver much higher societal ROI than government, in my opinion. And apparently Gates et al. agree with me privately. Publicly... they are all for higher taxes as long as it's forced by threat of imprisonment, apparently.
- Retric 8y ago
  Taxes are more than just a revenue source, they also change people’s bahavor. So, donating money to the government and raising taxes results in different outcomes. I don’t think the US government needs more money, but the current tax structure distorts the economy and creates inefficiency. Longer term, having the rich pay little taxes destabilizes the nation. Democratic rule is not perticularly stable over time and the US is heading down a very dark path. In the end their are not enough billionaires where revenue from them really matters. Higher taxes on competent wealthy people has little real impact. However, ultra low capital gains is crital for creating a group of people who are incompetent, inherited lots of money, and stay powerful.
- eropple 8y ago
  Systemic issues are not solved by individual action. Software people (generally) seem to understand that in our field; it's why we have standards and code reviews. I don't understand why that understanding leaks out of one's brain when it's applied to the rest of the world. The issues that proponents intend to address with greater taxation on the wealthy have remarkably little to do with "the government doesn't have enough money". They have to do with "taxes form economic incentives and the current set of incentives suck for everybody". An individual--yes, including Bill Gates--paying more taxes has marginal impact on the systemic issues of high-end under-taxation. Had the phrase not been co-opted by dirtbags, we'd probably file the act you are asking your "Democrat friends" about under...wait for it...virtue signaling.
jbay 8y ago
> "The only time taxes are required is when people will not freely give money for a project. That is literally the only reason taxes exist. Nothing is stopping people from donating to the government." This really sounds true, but it disregards game theory. For concreteness, let's say the government proposes to upgrade a waste processing plant for $500 million, and you think it's a pretty good idea. There are varying levels of being willing to "freely give money": 1. You are willing to personally pay for the waste processing plant out of your own pocket. You happen to have $500 million, and regardless of what anyone else in the country thinks, you think the waste processing upgrade is badly needed and you're willing to devote your entire personal fortune to it. Maybe the waste processing plant will be named after you. 2. You are willing to pay for it, but only if your fellow citizens also pitch in. The waste processing plant serves 5 million people in the area. You aren't willing to personally pay $500 million, but you are willing to enter a contract with your 5 million fellows that you'll all pay $100 each. 3. You would be willing to join a pact to pay for it, but not if you can easily get away with being a free rider, where the plant gets built without your support. If a generous billionaire will personally donate to the government to pay for the entire thing, then why should you pay anything? Or, if 1 million of your fellow citizens will happily pay $500 each, then why should you pay anything? But that's not to say you don't think the plant is worth the money. You'd even be willing to pay for it if there were no other way to get it built. You'd just prefer not to waste your own money on it if the plant gets built even when you opt out of the payment contract. Unfortunately, the common mentality of option (3) usually prevents options (1) and (2) from being feasible, because anyone who doesn't agree to pay still gets the benefit of the plant upgrades. Option (1) can still work for very prestigious projects that make a good legacy-building donation, but probably not waste processing plant upgrades. The free rider problem prevents almost anyone from voluntarily forming a pact to share the cost burden even when the plant upgrades are direly needed. Fortunately there is a fourth option. 4. You would be willing to pay for it conditional on your fellow citizens fairly sharing the bill. Thus you support entering a mutually-binding pact which will also bind any potential free riders in the municipality who also benefit from the waste processing plant. The pact takes force as long as the motion to upgrade the waste processing plant wins majority support. In order for this kind of pact to be possible, you all (even the free riders) voluntarily agree ahead of time to support the legally-binding force of these kinds of pacts, and the conditions under which the majority will be determined. In other words, you choose to live under a democratic government. Of course there's also a fifth option: 5. You don't think the waste processing plant needs upgrades, and you don't support yourself or anyone else paying for it. I often hear from Americans that taxation equates to theft, or slavery, or being held at gunpoint to pay for other peoples' things. But this naively assumes that anyone who doesn't have opinion (1) must have opinion (5). In fact, I think the vast majority of people have opinion (4), because it's the Nash equilibrium for people who support a public works project, but I never hear opponents of taxation even talk about the existence of opinion (4). Perhaps they haven't imagined that someone would be unwilling to donate $100 to the government, but be enthusiastically willing to have that same $100 forcibly taken from them (as long as it's also taken from their fellows)? I certainly am. That's why I vote to raise taxes even though I wouldn't donate to the government.

by nonbel 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Retric 8y ago

Just because everyone is like me is not enough to for voluntary payment to work. The issue is when people can not pay and get what they want they will simply not pay. If me and 10,000 people want a waste treatment plant we can individually chip in. But, in that case defecting would be so common that it's unlikely to be built. Or, we can vote to make payment mandatory and get what most people want, but nobody wants to pay for. Now, if you disagree feel free to start a build a wall fund. It can work for specific kinds of things where donations feel good.

nonbel 8y ago
>"If me and 10,000 people want a waste treatment plant we can individually chip in. But, in that case defecting would be so common that it's unlikely to be built." Ok, but my point is limited to the fact that taxes only serve a purpose when people will not voluntarily fund a project. So this agrees with me. It delusional to think taxes are something more than a government taking your money and spending it on stuff (which may or may not benefit you). >"Now, if you disagree feel free to start a build a wall fund. It can work for specific kinds of things where donations feel good." I could personally care less whether there is a wall or not. It seems irrelevant beyond as a symbol that immigration laws are being enforced.
- Retric 8y ago
  The distinction I am going for is people who would donate if and only if their donation makes a difference to project completion. If you can save your 100$ and still get what you want then that’s different than your 100$ being what allows something to happen. My 100$ is not going to cure cancer so I don’t donate to cancer research. But, if I knew it would make the difference between a cure and no cure, then I would very much donate 100$ to end cancer.
  - nonbel 8y ago
    >"The distinction I am going for is people who would donate if and only if their donation makes a difference to project completion. If you can save your 100$ and still get what you want then that’s different than your 100$ being what allows something to happen." So you claim people won't voluntarily fund a project like a wastewater treatment plant since it doesn't make them feel rewarded or some other mental thing. Fine, doesn't matter why they won't do it. My point is that's the only time taxes are required to get a project done. >"My 100$ is not going to cure cancer so I don’t donate to cancer research. But, if I knew it would make the difference between a cure and no cure, then I would very much donate 100$ to end cancer." Even the NIH admits medical researchers waste 90% of the funds they pass out (I would put it much higher), so yea there really is no reason to give them any more money: https://nihrecord.nih.gov/newsletters/2016/07_01_2016/story3.htm https://nihrecord.nih.gov/newsletters/2016/07_01_2016/story3...
    - Retric 8y ago
      Cancer research is only one example, a new road also requires a minimum amount of money. Many people would happily pay for their chunk of a new road/bridge if it made the difference between having it and not because the cost is less than the utility. But, you don’t see charities to build roads because that model does not work in that context. As to efficiency that’s not really relevant. What I pay to see a movie is divorced from what it takes to make the movie. All I care about is the utility.
      - 8y ago

saas_sam 8y ago

>>The only time taxes are required is when people will not freely give money for a project. That is literally the only reason taxes exist. Nothing is stopping people from donating to the government. I like this point and I make it a lot to my Democrat friends who insist rich people should pay more taxes. These people use the fact that they are themselves rich to support their argument ("I should pay more taxes too, you see!"). I always ask them, "Then why don't you? The Treasury accepts donations, you know." It would be a persuasive gesture for folks like Bill Gates and Bernie Sanders who are insisting their tax bracket should be higher to write big checks to the Treasury for what they think is morally right. But of course, they won't. Nor should they -- top charities deliver much higher societal ROI than government, in my opinion. And apparently Gates et al. agree with me privately. Publicly... they are all for higher taxes as long as it's forced by threat of imprisonment, apparently.

Retric 8y ago
Taxes are more than just a revenue source, they also change people’s bahavor. So, donating money to the government and raising taxes results in different outcomes. I don’t think the US government needs more money, but the current tax structure distorts the economy and creates inefficiency. Longer term, having the rich pay little taxes destabilizes the nation. Democratic rule is not perticularly stable over time and the US is heading down a very dark path. In the end their are not enough billionaires where revenue from them really matters. Higher taxes on competent wealthy people has little real impact. However, ultra low capital gains is crital for creating a group of people who are incompetent, inherited lots of money, and stay powerful.
eropple 8y ago
Systemic issues are not solved by individual action. Software people (generally) seem to understand that in our field; it's why we have standards and code reviews. I don't understand why that understanding leaks out of one's brain when it's applied to the rest of the world. The issues that proponents intend to address with greater taxation on the wealthy have remarkably little to do with "the government doesn't have enough money". They have to do with "taxes form economic incentives and the current set of incentives suck for everybody". An individual--yes, including Bill Gates--paying more taxes has marginal impact on the systemic issues of high-end under-taxation. Had the phrase not been co-opted by dirtbags, we'd probably file the act you are asking your "Democrat friends" about under...wait for it...virtue signaling.

jbay 8y ago

> "The only time taxes are required is when people will not freely give money for a project. That is literally the only reason taxes exist. Nothing is stopping people from donating to the government." This really sounds true, but it disregards game theory. For concreteness, let's say the government proposes to upgrade a waste processing plant for $500 million, and you think it's a pretty good idea. There are varying levels of being willing to "freely give money": 1. You are willing to personally pay for the waste processing plant out of your own pocket. You happen to have $500 million, and regardless of what anyone else in the country thinks, you think the waste processing upgrade is badly needed and you're willing to devote your entire personal fortune to it. Maybe the waste processing plant will be named after you. 2. You are willing to pay for it, but only if your fellow citizens also pitch in. The waste processing plant serves 5 million people in the area. You aren't willing to personally pay $500 million, but you are willing to enter a contract with your 5 million fellows that you'll all pay $100 each. 3. You would be willing to join a pact to pay for it, but not if you can easily get away with being a free rider, where the plant gets built without your support. If a generous billionaire will personally donate to the government to pay for the entire thing, then why should you pay anything? Or, if 1 million of your fellow citizens will happily pay $500 each, then why should you pay anything? But that's not to say you don't think the plant is worth the money. You'd even be willing to pay for it if there were no other way to get it built. You'd just prefer not to waste your own money on it if the plant gets built even when you opt out of the payment contract. Unfortunately, the common mentality of option (3) usually prevents options (1) and (2) from being feasible, because anyone who doesn't agree to pay still gets the benefit of the plant upgrades. Option (1) can still work for very prestigious projects that make a good legacy-building donation, but probably not waste processing plant upgrades. The free rider problem prevents almost anyone from voluntarily forming a pact to share the cost burden even when the plant upgrades are direly needed. Fortunately there is a fourth option. 4. You would be willing to pay for it conditional on your fellow citizens fairly sharing the bill. Thus you support entering a mutually-binding pact which will also bind any potential free riders in the municipality who also benefit from the waste processing plant. The pact takes force as long as the motion to upgrade the waste processing plant wins majority support. In order for this kind of pact to be possible, you all (even the free riders) voluntarily agree ahead of time to support the legally-binding force of these kinds of pacts, and the conditions under which the majority will be determined. In other words, you choose to live under a democratic government. Of course there's also a fifth option: 5. You don't think the waste processing plant needs upgrades, and you don't support yourself or anyone else paying for it. I often hear from Americans that taxation equates to theft, or slavery, or being held at gunpoint to pay for other peoples' things. But this naively assumes that anyone who doesn't have opinion (1) must have opinion (5). In fact, I think the vast majority of people have opinion (4), because it's the Nash equilibrium for people who support a public works project, but I never hear opponents of taxation even talk about the existence of opinion (4). Perhaps they haven't imagined that someone would be unwilling to donate $100 to the government, but be enthusiastically willing to have that same $100 forcibly taken from them (as long as it's also taken from their fellows)? I certainly am. That's why I vote to raise taxes even though I wouldn't donate to the government.