tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post8510498893414673011..comments2024-01-28T00:20:40.933-08:00Comments on Agoraphilia: Wilkinson vs. Zwolinski on Voluntary Tax ContributionsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-2767283892662608492012-04-29T12:34:42.352-07:002012-04-29T12:34:42.352-07:00Here’s my view. At some point, we will need to br...Here’s my view. At some point, we will need to bring the budget substantively into balance. This can be accomplished by some mix of raising taxes and cutting spending. But given the choices of (1) raising taxes, (2) cutting spending, (3) not making a decision, we are choosing option (3). The problem is how do we move away from (3) and towards (1) or (2). <br /><br />Buffet is just saying that his preferred solution is (1), even if it costs him a lot of money personally. However, Buffet donating to the government doesn’t move us away from (3), and for that matter, doesn’t even make it more likely that we move to (1).<br /><br />Say that we currently have a shortfall of $100 per year. Buffet wants to raise taxes by $100 (where he pays $50) and not cut spending. You want to cut spending by $100 and not raise taxes (indeed, you’d like to cut taxes). If he promises to donate $50 per year, your policy might shift to cutting spending by $100 and cutting taxes by $50.<br /><br />In other words, people interpret Buffett unwillingness to donate as evidence that he doesn’t value government services. Maybe he’s not willing to pay for other people’s tax cuts.JimDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02137758021906017336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-79039287196290247162012-04-22T21:35:41.047-07:002012-04-22T21:35:41.047-07:00It could be that Buffett thinks that the governmen...It could be that Buffett thinks that the government is not the optimal use of his money, but it is a very good use of the money, and the best option that he can get other people to go along with.<br /><br />Say that Buffett thinks that $1 in the hands of the optimal charity is worth 1 utile, $1 for the government is worth 0.5 utiles, and $1 in the hands of a typical rich person is worth 0.1 utiles.<br /><br />Then if Buffett pays $100 to the government instead of giving it to the optimal charity, that has a net cost of 50 utiles (+50 government - 100 charity). But if another rich person pays $100 to the government, that has a net benefit of 40 utiles (+50 government - 10 individual). So if Buffett and 10 other rich people all pay $100 extra in taxes, that has a net benefit of 350 utiles (10x40 - 50).<br /><br />Similar logic applies if Buffett does think that the government is the optimal altruistic use of money, but he is somewhere between perfect altruism and perfect selfishness. For instance, maybe each dollar he keeps is worth 0.1 utile to him, and each dollar the government has is worth 0.5 utiles to the people who get it, but he weights himself 10x anyone else. Then Buffett and other rich people like him face a collective action problem, where each dollar a person gives to the government produces half as much value from the point of view of the person who gave it (because he weighted it 10x when it was in his own hands), but it produces 5 times as much value from the point of view of anyone else. The math is identical to the first case - if 11 rich people each give $100 to the government then they each benefit by 350 utiles.Blarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654557196171228300noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-91158149693494942242012-04-22T16:28:04.770-07:002012-04-22T16:28:04.770-07:00Who doesn't want the most bang for their buck?...Who doesn't want the most bang for their buck? Who doesn't want more for less? Who doesn't kick themselves when they discover that their sacrifice was in vain?<br /><br />I really enjoyed reading a few of your blog entries...<a href="http://agoraphilia.blogspot.com/2004/08/libertarian-case-against-non-voting.html" rel="nofollow">A Libertarian Case Against Non-Voting</a>...<a href="http://agoraphilia.blogspot.com/2003/07/ashton-demi-and-coase-one-implication.html" rel="nofollow">Ashton, Demi and Coase</a>...and have RSS subscribed to your blog.<br /><br />If you get a chance, it would be really great if you could critique pragmatarianism. It's basically where taxpayers choose where their taxes go. Here's the Wikipedia entry I created for the concept...<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_choice" rel="nofollow">Tax Choice</a> and here's the most recent critique...<a href="http://pragmatarianism.blogspot.com/2012/04/troy-camplins-critique-of.html" rel="nofollow">Troy Camplin's Critique of Pragmatarianism</a>.Xerographicahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14978832439622230018noreply@blogger.com