3 ms·

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 char

by 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.
- md_ 5y ago
  I may have been a little unclear. I'm typing this while in a meeting. ;) My point was that a rational actor might believe that per dollar more good is done by the dollar being given directly to the charity of choice than to the government, but also believe in raising tax rates overall (as a means to social goods). As a result, the actor should rationally prefer to give as much of their money as possible directly to the charity and not to taxes even while arguing for elevated taxes.
  - ericmay 5y ago
    Hey me too! :) I think the overall issue is that what I personally think someone should do is that if they believe in paying higher taxes, it shouldn't matter what anybody else does, they should just pay higher taxes or even spend money to lobby for higher taxes via campaign contributions, lobbyists, etc. It just seems like mental gymnastics that some wealthy people use to avoid feeling bad that there are poor people by saying if only they raised taxes you'd pay more while also not paying more. Of course you'd pay more if taxes were raised, except in the case where taxes were raised and then you found loopholes or deductions to not pay them... It's just a way to convince yourself to have your cake and eat it too. But even if taxes weren't raised, why can't you self-fund social programs? Even at a very basic level - food stamps. You could just offset how much you think you should pay in additional taxes by donating to food pantries or just buying people groceries. You don't need the government to do that. You could make a huge impact in your own community. We all could! Some of my friends and friends of friends got stimulus money when that first stimulus came around. Based on the previous year's tax returns we received a couple hundred bucks or something. I don't remember exactly. Could have used the money for something? Sure. We could have taken the money and bought something we felt like buying, then went online and said it was a terrible thing that others didn't get enough money and we were getting money. We could have went and did what my friends did and buy new GPUs or something. No. We just turned right around and donated it to the Mid-Ohio Foodbank. They all went on about how they didn't need the money (obviously) and that it was sad people were losing their jobs and on lockdown and all of that and that the government should do something. Like.. why don't you do something? Take that $1,000 you got and turn around and give it to someone who needs it. Please don't take that personally or anything - I'm exploring this with the aim of a good discussion. I'm not quite as well off as you but we do very well for ourselves and probably need to donate more money anyway. It just always drives me up the wall when Bill Gates or Warren Buffet come out and say they should pay more taxes... they can just do that. They don't need anyone else to. Am I more moral or more of a leader than they are? I highly doubt it. So what's left? Game theory? Or maybe they just want to craft a persona? Idk. I don't mind that people are wealthy. We certainly are depending on who we are being compared to, but I just feel like people are being dishonest with themselves and others on this particular topic, even if it's not intentional.
    - 5y ago

by md_ 5y ago

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.

md_ 5y ago
I may have been a little unclear. I'm typing this while in a meeting. ;) My point was that a rational actor might believe that per dollar more good is done by the dollar being given directly to the charity of choice than to the government, but also believe in raising tax rates overall (as a means to social goods). As a result, the actor should rationally prefer to give as much of their money as possible directly to the charity and not to taxes even while arguing for elevated taxes.
- ericmay 5y ago
  Hey me too! :) I think the overall issue is that what I personally think someone should do is that if they believe in paying higher taxes, it shouldn't matter what anybody else does, they should just pay higher taxes or even spend money to lobby for higher taxes via campaign contributions, lobbyists, etc. It just seems like mental gymnastics that some wealthy people use to avoid feeling bad that there are poor people by saying if only they raised taxes you'd pay more while also not paying more. Of course you'd pay more if taxes were raised, except in the case where taxes were raised and then you found loopholes or deductions to not pay them... It's just a way to convince yourself to have your cake and eat it too. But even if taxes weren't raised, why can't you self-fund social programs? Even at a very basic level - food stamps. You could just offset how much you think you should pay in additional taxes by donating to food pantries or just buying people groceries. You don't need the government to do that. You could make a huge impact in your own community. We all could! Some of my friends and friends of friends got stimulus money when that first stimulus came around. Based on the previous year's tax returns we received a couple hundred bucks or something. I don't remember exactly. Could have used the money for something? Sure. We could have taken the money and bought something we felt like buying, then went online and said it was a terrible thing that others didn't get enough money and we were getting money. We could have went and did what my friends did and buy new GPUs or something. No. We just turned right around and donated it to the Mid-Ohio Foodbank. They all went on about how they didn't need the money (obviously) and that it was sad people were losing their jobs and on lockdown and all of that and that the government should do something. Like.. why don't you do something? Take that $1,000 you got and turn around and give it to someone who needs it. Please don't take that personally or anything - I'm exploring this with the aim of a good discussion. I'm not quite as well off as you but we do very well for ourselves and probably need to donate more money anyway. It just always drives me up the wall when Bill Gates or Warren Buffet come out and say they should pay more taxes... they can just do that. They don't need anyone else to. Am I more moral or more of a leader than they are? I highly doubt it. So what's left? Game theory? Or maybe they just want to craft a persona? Idk. I don't mind that people are wealthy. We certainly are depending on who we are being compared to, but I just feel like people are being dishonest with themselves and others on this particular topic, even if it's not intentional.
  - 5y ago