5 ms·

You're being obtuse. The point is that it's perfectly reasonable to be willing to pay more, but only if all the other rich people do too.

ericmay 5y ago
Why would you need others to do something you think you should do? Actually, how would anybody ever start doing that thing if everybody is waiting for someone else to do it first and that person too is waiting for others to do it first? “Tax me more” is just a publicity stunt and unfortunately it confuses people.
- md_ 5y ago
  As I noted elsewhere in this thread, this is the nature of what are called "collective action problems." In effect, these are situations where coordinated collective action may be beneficial, but there is a disincentive to being the initiator of such an action. The examples I gave above were fireproofing your building, buying health insurance before you are sick, and mandatory turn signals on cars, but these abound in public policy: think, mandatory face mask wearing during a global pandemic in which masks which block the transmission of a disease from an infected person are cheaper than masks which block the infection of someone else. Regardless of where you come down on the ideological question—perhaps you think it's fundamentally immoral for governments to exist at all, which I can respect!—it's very simple economics that such problems (where the global optimal is only achieved if we ignore individual optimization) exist.
  - ericmay 5y ago
    And how are those collective action problems solved?
    - md_ 5y ago
      Typically, by government action, ideally as a result of a democratic process.
      - ericmay 5y ago
        So Warren Buffet and others should wait for the government to increase their tax rate and then they can pay more taxes? And this has to happen because if any one of them pays more taxes before the others they are at a disadvantage?
        md_ 5y ago
        I think "at a disadvantage" may be the wrong framing. As a member of (say) the 1%, but not the 0.01%, my personal take is this: - My money does more good, dollar-for-dollar, by my own personal definition of "good", when I donate it to specific charities than when it's collected as tax and then spent. - We would nonetheless have a net benefit from more aggressive taxation of people like me because a) the reduced effectiveness, per dollar, is counterbalanced by increased overall spending, and b) more progressive taxation would help address inequality of wealth and income, which has other, independent, pernicious impacts. Because I believe those two things, I both a) advocate for higher taxes on "people like me" and b) to the extent legally possible, minimize my tax burden and prefer to make voluntary charitable contributions. I believe this last part is fully consistent with the first two bullet points if we take them axiomatically, though they each may of course be themselves wrong. Edit: I also want to add: I think when we talk policy, we often talk in a "if I were King of the World" sort of way. So, if I were King of the World, we'd raise tax rates but not spend the money on stuff I disagree with. ;) If you told me, "Yeah, we can raise the top income tax rate, but all the extra money will go to drone strikes against civilians," of course I'd oppose it. I think a lot of our "should dos" assume we get other policy outcomes we desire as well.
        ericmay 5y ago
        Thanks for explaining your viewpoint! I agree w.r.t king of the world. Let me summarize I guess. I just get annoyed when people like Warren Buffet go "oh if only they'd tax me more" when he's clearly in a position to pay more in taxes if he wants. I certainly empathize with the general social dilemma you outlined, of course, but in this case it just strikes me as marketing and it's very off-putting. I do think it would be neat if we could just get a receipt for our taxes. At least a general percentage showing what percent goes to what and an opportunity to drill down more into it if we wanted. Though it's a bit bizarre. I don't think I've paid enough in taxes to even buy a cruise missile... lol
rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
Another way to frame this: if I'm a millionaire and want all millionaires to pay more tax (including me), paying more tax without trying to get others to do so could allow other millionaires to spend their tax savings to lobby against higher taxes. I may not want to sacrifice myself nor do I want to pay more tax for myself, but simply want a fairer system. A society is more than the sum of individuals, obviously.
pessimizer 5y ago
It's only reasonable in a competitive environment, outside of that, you have to actually show your reasoning. If we're participants in a market that is designed to be fair, to say the rules should be changed for everyone in order for you not to take advantage of a loophole with negative effects but competitive advantage makes sense. It's saying that you're participating in a market that was designed incorrectly, and asking for the design to be corrected. To say you're going to keep dodging personal taxes until no one can dodge personal taxes is just dodging taxes. There's no market and no competition. Paying the taxes you think are ideal will just put you in the place you would be if taxes were how you think they should be.
agent008t 5y ago
They could make a public pact?

ericmay 5y ago

Why would you need others to do something you think you should do? Actually, how would anybody ever start doing that thing if everybody is waiting for someone else to do it first and that person too is waiting for others to do it first? “Tax me more” is just a publicity stunt and unfortunately it confuses people.

md_ 5y ago
As I noted elsewhere in this thread, this is the nature of what are called "collective action problems." In effect, these are situations where coordinated collective action may be beneficial, but there is a disincentive to being the initiator of such an action. The examples I gave above were fireproofing your building, buying health insurance before you are sick, and mandatory turn signals on cars, but these abound in public policy: think, mandatory face mask wearing during a global pandemic in which masks which block the transmission of a disease from an infected person are cheaper than masks which block the infection of someone else. Regardless of where you come down on the ideological question—perhaps you think it's fundamentally immoral for governments to exist at all, which I can respect!—it's very simple economics that such problems (where the global optimal is only achieved if we ignore individual optimization) exist.
- ericmay 5y ago
  And how are those collective action problems solved?
  - md_ 5y ago
    Typically, by government action, ideally as a result of a democratic process.
    - ericmay 5y ago
      So Warren Buffet and others should wait for the government to increase their tax rate and then they can pay more taxes? And this has to happen because if any one of them pays more taxes before the others they are at a disadvantage?
      - md_ 5y ago
        I think "at a disadvantage" may be the wrong framing. As a member of (say) the 1%, but not the 0.01%, my personal take is this: - My money does more good, dollar-for-dollar, by my own personal definition of "good", when I donate it to specific charities than when it's collected as tax and then spent. - We would nonetheless have a net benefit from more aggressive taxation of people like me because a) the reduced effectiveness, per dollar, is counterbalanced by increased overall spending, and b) more progressive taxation would help address inequality of wealth and income, which has other, independent, pernicious impacts. Because I believe those two things, I both a) advocate for higher taxes on "people like me" and b) to the extent legally possible, minimize my tax burden and prefer to make voluntary charitable contributions. I believe this last part is fully consistent with the first two bullet points if we take them axiomatically, though they each may of course be themselves wrong. Edit: I also want to add: I think when we talk policy, we often talk in a "if I were King of the World" sort of way. So, if I were King of the World, we'd raise tax rates but not spend the money on stuff I disagree with. ;) If you told me, "Yeah, we can raise the top income tax rate, but all the extra money will go to drone strikes against civilians," of course I'd oppose it. I think a lot of our "should dos" assume we get other policy outcomes we desire as well.
        ericmay 5y ago
        Thanks for explaining your viewpoint! I agree w.r.t king of the world. Let me summarize I guess. I just get annoyed when people like Warren Buffet go "oh if only they'd tax me more" when he's clearly in a position to pay more in taxes if he wants. I certainly empathize with the general social dilemma you outlined, of course, but in this case it just strikes me as marketing and it's very off-putting. I do think it would be neat if we could just get a receipt for our taxes. At least a general percentage showing what percent goes to what and an opportunity to drill down more into it if we wanted. Though it's a bit bizarre. I don't think I've paid enough in taxes to even buy a cruise missile... lol

rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago

Another way to frame this: if I'm a millionaire and want all millionaires to pay more tax (including me), paying more tax without trying to get others to do so could allow other millionaires to spend their tax savings to lobby against higher taxes. I may not want to sacrifice myself nor do I want to pay more tax for myself, but simply want a fairer system. A society is more than the sum of individuals, obviously.

pessimizer 5y ago

It's only reasonable in a competitive environment, outside of that, you have to actually show your reasoning. If we're participants in a market that is designed to be fair, to say the rules should be changed for everyone in order for you not to take advantage of a loophole with negative effects but competitive advantage makes sense. It's saying that you're participating in a market that was designed incorrectly, and asking for the design to be corrected. To say you're going to keep dodging personal taxes until no one can dodge personal taxes is just dodging taxes. There's no market and no competition. Paying the taxes you think are ideal will just put you in the place you would be if taxes were how you think they should be.

agent008t 5y ago

They could make a public pact?