4 ms·

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, doll

by 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
- md_ 5y ago
  I explained my thinking because I can _imagine_ it to also describe someone like Buffet's thinking. The top 0.1% have about 11% of the income in the US, or about $2Tn. So for someone like Buffet, a one-time contribution of half his net worth—which he has promised to do—is about $55Bn; an extra 1% effective taxation of the income of the 0.1% would be $200bn _per year_. So even if you're Buffett—and even if you're pledged to donate have of your personal wealth to charity—it's a pretty small amount compared to the ongoing returns from a small tax increase. I do strongly disagree with many of the things my tax money goes to, obviously. But I think this is where the "King of the World" thing comes in. ;)
  - ericmay 5y ago
    It seems to me that Warren Buffet can do both though. He can pay more in taxes by not taking deductions or just giving more to the government and advocate for a higher rate. Lead by example.
    - md_ 5y ago
      For sure, but I assume his calculation may be similar to mine: that it's even more optimal to advocate for a higher tax rate and give his money directly to charities he chooses (which he has done, sort of, by pledging to give half his wealth to the Gates Foundation).
      - ericmay 5y ago
        Wouldn't it make sense to just pay more taxes and also give away money to charities? I mean, even if the tax rates are raised it's not like that money will universally (maybe not even majority) be applied to "good" programs... so once the tax rates are raised you're going to be funding more bombs and all that too. It's not going to just go to welfare (not using this term negatively) programs. It seems to me if you want to reduce wealth inequality you could do something like pay for a few people each month. Kind of like a patron. Why wait for a government program in which some of the money will be siphoned off for bloat, some of it will not actually go to the issue you want to address, and even so you won't have much of a say in how the money is spent in the first place? I actually run a non-profit. (Site is down at the moment b/c I didn't want to pay $300 for another year of Wix so I am going to redeploy it on S3 - where art thou time). I see a lot of other non-profits in my space who seem to be siphoning up money for not-so-great ideas and projects and general government contracts. Feels like nobody is really great at this stuff.

by md_ 5y ago

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

md_ 5y ago
I explained my thinking because I can _imagine_ it to also describe someone like Buffet's thinking. The top 0.1% have about 11% of the income in the US, or about $2Tn. So for someone like Buffet, a one-time contribution of half his net worth—which he has promised to do—is about $55Bn; an extra 1% effective taxation of the income of the 0.1% would be $200bn _per year_. So even if you're Buffett—and even if you're pledged to donate have of your personal wealth to charity—it's a pretty small amount compared to the ongoing returns from a small tax increase. I do strongly disagree with many of the things my tax money goes to, obviously. But I think this is where the "King of the World" thing comes in. ;)
- ericmay 5y ago
  It seems to me that Warren Buffet can do both though. He can pay more in taxes by not taking deductions or just giving more to the government and advocate for a higher rate. Lead by example.
  - md_ 5y ago
    For sure, but I assume his calculation may be similar to mine: that it's even more optimal to advocate for a higher tax rate and give his money directly to charities he chooses (which he has done, sort of, by pledging to give half his wealth to the Gates Foundation).
    - ericmay 5y ago
      Wouldn't it make sense to just pay more taxes and also give away money to charities? I mean, even if the tax rates are raised it's not like that money will universally (maybe not even majority) be applied to "good" programs... so once the tax rates are raised you're going to be funding more bombs and all that too. It's not going to just go to welfare (not using this term negatively) programs. It seems to me if you want to reduce wealth inequality you could do something like pay for a few people each month. Kind of like a patron. Why wait for a government program in which some of the money will be siphoned off for bloat, some of it will not actually go to the issue you want to address, and even so you won't have much of a say in how the money is spent in the first place? I actually run a non-profit. (Site is down at the moment b/c I didn't want to pay $300 for another year of Wix so I am going to redeploy it on S3 - where art thou time). I see a lot of other non-profits in my space who seem to be siphoning up money for not-so-great ideas and projects and general government contracts. Feels like nobody is really great at this stuff.