> why would you rather have someone point a gun to your head before you give them a check? In general, this is to solve a coordination problem. Imagine in the

> why would you rather have someone point a gun to your head before you give them a check? In general, this is to solve a coordination problem. Imagine in the Prisoners' Dilemma (you would rather defect than cooperate, but you would rather everyone cooperate than everyone defect), you're at an equilibrium where everyone defects. If you cooperate, it just makes yourself worse off. But if you pass a law forcing everyone to cooperate, then everyone is better off. Overpaying the IRS is a lot like cooperating in the Prisoners' Dilemma – if you're the only one who does it, it hurts you more than it helps the rest of the world (even if you wanted to help the rest of the world, it would be more efficient just to donate it directly to charity, or even start a charity yourself – which is unsurprisingly what most wealthy people actually do in that situation). If only you donate $10m to the IRS, you might cause $5m of good in the world (50% is an example and not intended as an actual estimate of government efficiency - the math works similarly with any percentage) - you'd rather just donate it to charity. But if you raise taxes by $10m for 1000 wealthy people, the $10m you spend could cause $5000m of good in the world, making it well worth it.