4 ms·

> A utilitarian could claim that after the point where the marginal value of the dollar to the rich person is so low that seizing it results in higher global ut

> A utilitarian could claim that after the point where the marginal value of the dollar to the rich person is so low that seizing it results in higher global utility, even taking into account the angst and disincentives on the rich as a result. A utilitarian could (and has) claimed that this marginal dollar occurs at the point where you have the bare minimum to survive: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Y4Adk743X2ZoMBSBi/does-utilitarianism-require-extreme-self-sacrifice-if-not https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Y4Adk743X2ZoMBSBi/does-utili... >"For example, utilitarianism apparently endorses killing a single innocent person and harvesting their organs if it will save five other people. It also appears to imply that donating all your money to charity beyond what you need to survive isn’t just admirable but morally obligatory. " So I don't think a strictly utilitarian argument is sufficient.

joshuamorton 7y ago
> A utilitarian could (and has) claimed that this marginal dollar occurs at the point where you have the bare minimum to survive There's a few problems with this line of reasoning: 1. Its not clear to me that this argument is being made by a utilitarian, as you claim 2. You at least appear to show a misunderstanding of what "the marginal dollar" is. Every dollar is the marginal dollar. Its just that the relative value of dollar 1 (which you need to survive) is greater than the relative value of dollar 1 Billion, which you use to, uhhh, buy an island. I think what you're saying is that there is a point where the marginal value of your dollars is low enough that you are ethically obligated to donate them is at or around subsistence level, and that might be true, but it leads to the third problem: 3. Even for a strict utilitarian, if you take into account externalities, the right thing to do might not be to take all the money away from people. If you're optimizing for something like reducing death, reducing everyone in the US to subsistence level probably isn't the best solution: you'll likely do something unwarranted like cause a revolt. This has two major net negatives: a bunch of people die in the revolt, and you end up losing a lot of your money, either because you spend it to put down the revolt or because you don't and you lose and people take it back. 4. While improving the life of those in absolute poverty is a laudable goal, it's not clear that it makes sense for a government to do that, except when it ends up being beneficial to the government or its people. In other words, a government's moral imperative probably doesn't extend (far) beyond its borders. > So I don't think a strictly utilitarian argument is sufficient. People often forget about externalities. On the other hand, if you think of the supply of billionaires as a revenue source, and then you think of there being decreasing demand for being a billionaire as taxes go up, but increased revenue per billionaire as taxes go up, you can draw up supply and demand curves and optimize to maximize revenue from billionaires (or people in general really, its just that the marginal rates can likely be higher on billionaires and they're the talking point of the day). If there are 100 billionaires, and you tax 2% more, and 1 billionaire moves away, you're still up on revenue. I often hear people arguing that we should operate our government more like a business.
- speedplane 7y ago
  > If there are 100 billionaires, and you tax 2% more, and 1 billionaire moves away, you're still up on revenue. I often hear people arguing that we should operate our government more like a business. This is actually one of the standard strategies for taxation: we should setup a tax system that optimizes for the maximum total tax receipts. When you tax too much, incentives go down and you actually lower your total tax receipts. In principle, there is an optimal taxation amount. The problem with this approach is that we don't have good enough data. No one really knows how many fewer billionaires there would be if we increased their taxes, and biased interests each have plenty of conjured data to make their argument. There are other tax strategies as well: trickle down economics (a favorite of the right, also based on suspect data); and guaranteeing living wage (a favorite of the left). One advantage of the latter is that the argument is not based on numbers or data, but on morality.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  >If there are 100 billionaires, and you tax 2% more, and 1 billionaire moves away, you're still up on revenue. But that's not the only thing that happens though. A prospective billionaire that is not yet a billionaire might think "there's little point in putting in all this work on this new project, because the government will take more of my money". Another thing that can happen is that a foreign company decides to invest somewhere else because of that tax. They might look at the tax and expect it to discourage investment internally and look for potentially better prospects.

joshuamorton 7y ago

> A utilitarian could (and has) claimed that this marginal dollar occurs at the point where you have the bare minimum to survive There's a few problems with this line of reasoning: 1. Its not clear to me that this argument is being made by a utilitarian, as you claim 2. You at least appear to show a misunderstanding of what "the marginal dollar" is. Every dollar is the marginal dollar. Its just that the relative value of dollar 1 (which you need to survive) is greater than the relative value of dollar 1 Billion, which you use to, uhhh, buy an island. I think what you're saying is that there is a point where the marginal value of your dollars is low enough that you are ethically obligated to donate them is at or around subsistence level, and that might be true, but it leads to the third problem: 3. Even for a strict utilitarian, if you take into account externalities, the right thing to do might not be to take all the money away from people. If you're optimizing for something like reducing death, reducing everyone in the US to subsistence level probably isn't the best solution: you'll likely do something unwarranted like cause a revolt. This has two major net negatives: a bunch of people die in the revolt, and you end up losing a lot of your money, either because you spend it to put down the revolt or because you don't and you lose and people take it back. 4. While improving the life of those in absolute poverty is a laudable goal, it's not clear that it makes sense for a government to do that, except when it ends up being beneficial to the government or its people. In other words, a government's moral imperative probably doesn't extend (far) beyond its borders. > So I don't think a strictly utilitarian argument is sufficient. People often forget about externalities. On the other hand, if you think of the supply of billionaires as a revenue source, and then you think of there being decreasing demand for being a billionaire as taxes go up, but increased revenue per billionaire as taxes go up, you can draw up supply and demand curves and optimize to maximize revenue from billionaires (or people in general really, its just that the marginal rates can likely be higher on billionaires and they're the talking point of the day). If there are 100 billionaires, and you tax 2% more, and 1 billionaire moves away, you're still up on revenue. I often hear people arguing that we should operate our government more like a business.

speedplane 7y ago
> If there are 100 billionaires, and you tax 2% more, and 1 billionaire moves away, you're still up on revenue. I often hear people arguing that we should operate our government more like a business. This is actually one of the standard strategies for taxation: we should setup a tax system that optimizes for the maximum total tax receipts. When you tax too much, incentives go down and you actually lower your total tax receipts. In principle, there is an optimal taxation amount. The problem with this approach is that we don't have good enough data. No one really knows how many fewer billionaires there would be if we increased their taxes, and biased interests each have plenty of conjured data to make their argument. There are other tax strategies as well: trickle down economics (a favorite of the right, also based on suspect data); and guaranteeing living wage (a favorite of the left). One advantage of the latter is that the argument is not based on numbers or data, but on morality.
Mirioron 7y ago
>If there are 100 billionaires, and you tax 2% more, and 1 billionaire moves away, you're still up on revenue. But that's not the only thing that happens though. A prospective billionaire that is not yet a billionaire might think "there's little point in putting in all this work on this new project, because the government will take more of my money". Another thing that can happen is that a foreign company decides to invest somewhere else because of that tax. They might look at the tax and expect it to discourage investment internally and look for potentially better prospects.