3 ms·

What, precisely, is stopping them from voluntarily paying more? Why the compulsion to use the system to force others to do as they believe they should do, yet (

What, precisely, is stopping them from voluntarily paying more? Why the compulsion to use the system to force others to do as they believe they should do, yet (as far as I can tell) do not actually do?

exabrial 7y ago
> Why the compulsion to use the system to force Agree so much. Consent is the operational term here. If you _consent_ to giving your money to the government it's fine. I however _object_ to have 33% of my paycheck forcefully removed from my possession. This is in fact, theft.
jdashg 7y ago
It's more efficient for them to donate to 100% things they want, instead of volunteered taxes which go into the big bucket. But, if everyone volunteered more taxes, the donations are now more efficient, because they represent compromise on what to spend taxes on. (Alice gets stuff Alice likes, Bob gets stuff Bob likes) Forcing everyone to "donate" prevents others from defecting. Also, "If you don't like war, what's stopping you from laying down your weapons?"
triceratops 7y ago
If only one rich person does it, over time they'll be poorer than other rich people who don't do it. It's no different than saying "Why do we need environmental laws? What, precisely, is stopping companies from not dumping industrial waste into the water?" Even if one party plays nice, they'll be outcompeted by all the others that do not.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  Well, if you believe that companies shouldn't dump industrial waste into the water, and you have a company, the correct thing to do is 1) don't dump industrial waste into the water, and 2) lobby for laws that prohibit dumping industrial waste into the water, and 3) work with industry groups (forming one if you have to) to try to create voluntary association of companies who don't dump industrial waste into the water even if it is legal to do so. Same thing here. You might become less well off than some other rich person? So? Do what you think is the right thing anyway. Or do you care more about your ranking on the Forbes list than you do about what you think is right? If you care more about Forbes, why should the rest of us care about what you claim is right? You aren't stuck with a change in tax law or nothing. Do it voluntarily, yourself, if you think it's a big deal. Encourage others to do it voluntarily also. And lobby for the law change. But if all you're going to do is lobby for the law change, well... not everyone will think that you are serious.
  - triceratops 7y ago
    Except that if 2 and 3 don't work, you've fallen behind your competitors. And have even less money and influence to continue pursuing 2 and 3. So no, I don't think you're right. You can't fix a tragedy of the commons with individual action.
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      What you say is true. And yet, what kind of a human being uses "tragedy of the commons" as an excuse why he has to dump pollution into the water? Back to the actual topic at hand. We're actually talking about wealthy individuals, not about companies. If Bill Gates, say, falls another 10% off of the leader on the Forbes wealthiest list, how much power and influence has he really lost? Not enough to use that as an excuse for inaction, that how much.
      - triceratops 7y ago
        Bill Gates is already giving most of his wealth to charity, so how much would he pay in taxes anyway, after all the deductions? And why would he pay additional taxes on top of that, when there are billionaires who haven't even done as much he already has?
        AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        I'm not in Bill Gates' bracket, but I believe that there are limits to how much you can deduct - the alternative minimum tax, if nothing else. Why would he pay additional taxes on top of that? If he were one of the ones advocating for higher taxes on the wealthy (he's not, so far as I can tell from the article), then he should so that his actions match his words. Otherwise, why should anybody listen to his words? I'm not criticizing Bill Gates. He has done an admirable job of putting his money where his mouth is. (So, in retrospect, me choosing him as an example in the post that is grandparent to this was an error.)
        triceratops 7y ago

exabrial 7y ago

> Why the compulsion to use the system to force Agree so much. Consent is the operational term here. If you _consent_ to giving your money to the government it's fine. I however _object_ to have 33% of my paycheck forcefully removed from my possession. This is in fact, theft.

jdashg 7y ago

It's more efficient for them to donate to 100% things they want, instead of volunteered taxes which go into the big bucket. But, if everyone volunteered more taxes, the donations are now more efficient, because they represent compromise on what to spend taxes on. (Alice gets stuff Alice likes, Bob gets stuff Bob likes) Forcing everyone to "donate" prevents others from defecting. Also, "If you don't like war, what's stopping you from laying down your weapons?"

triceratops 7y ago

If only one rich person does it, over time they'll be poorer than other rich people who don't do it. It's no different than saying "Why do we need environmental laws? What, precisely, is stopping companies from not dumping industrial waste into the water?" Even if one party plays nice, they'll be outcompeted by all the others that do not.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
Well, if you believe that companies shouldn't dump industrial waste into the water, and you have a company, the correct thing to do is 1) don't dump industrial waste into the water, and 2) lobby for laws that prohibit dumping industrial waste into the water, and 3) work with industry groups (forming one if you have to) to try to create voluntary association of companies who don't dump industrial waste into the water even if it is legal to do so. Same thing here. You might become less well off than some other rich person? So? Do what you think is the right thing anyway. Or do you care more about your ranking on the Forbes list than you do about what you think is right? If you care more about Forbes, why should the rest of us care about what you claim is right? You aren't stuck with a change in tax law or nothing. Do it voluntarily, yourself, if you think it's a big deal. Encourage others to do it voluntarily also. And lobby for the law change. But if all you're going to do is lobby for the law change, well... not everyone will think that you are serious.
- triceratops 7y ago
  Except that if 2 and 3 don't work, you've fallen behind your competitors. And have even less money and influence to continue pursuing 2 and 3. So no, I don't think you're right. You can't fix a tragedy of the commons with individual action.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    What you say is true. And yet, what kind of a human being uses "tragedy of the commons" as an excuse why he has to dump pollution into the water? Back to the actual topic at hand. We're actually talking about wealthy individuals, not about companies. If Bill Gates, say, falls another 10% off of the leader on the Forbes wealthiest list, how much power and influence has he really lost? Not enough to use that as an excuse for inaction, that how much.
    - triceratops 7y ago
      Bill Gates is already giving most of his wealth to charity, so how much would he pay in taxes anyway, after all the deductions? And why would he pay additional taxes on top of that, when there are billionaires who haven't even done as much he already has?
      - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        I'm not in Bill Gates' bracket, but I believe that there are limits to how much you can deduct - the alternative minimum tax, if nothing else. Why would he pay additional taxes on top of that? If he were one of the ones advocating for higher taxes on the wealthy (he's not, so far as I can tell from the article), then he should so that his actions match his words. Otherwise, why should anybody listen to his words? I'm not criticizing Bill Gates. He has done an admirable job of putting his money where his mouth is. (So, in retrospect, me choosing him as an example in the post that is grandparent to this was an error.)
        triceratops 7y ago