This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
How can we re-frame tax policy to make people happier about paying taxes and/or spending pro-socially?
We already require people to pay taxes, both for their own good and for the good of society as a whole. Michael Norton's talk, everyday experience, and our tribal evolutionary history suggest that pro-social spending makes us happier. Yet, many people hate paying taxes, possibly (as per Rory Sutherland's talk) because of the way tax policy is perceived or structured, or because they hate the lack of control as to where their money goes.
If you think social policies should be structured in such a way as to give the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people, then is there a way to structure tax policy in such a way to make people happier about paying taxes and/or spending pro-socially?
For example, maybe allowing (or requiring) people to pay some percentage of their taxes (beyond what they pay to the general fund) on some pre-approved set of necessary social programs, but allowing people to choose which ones, could be a policy that would promote pro-social behavior, and thereby produce happier and tighter-knit communities, nations, etc.
Such a policy would, in fact, be less restrictive than either taxation or education, both of which we already require. We don't allow selfish behavior (not paying taxes, remaining ignorant) in either of those cases, because we understand that pro-social laws and policies are necessary for society to function at all.
Policies like this are particularly necessary right now in the US, for example, where the country is extremely divided politically. This could also get the Mitt Romneys of the world to gain an appreciation of the interdependence that allows them to become and remain wealthy.
So, given that pro-social spending makes people happy (a la Michael Norton's talk) and given that re-framing where money goes can make people happier about paying money (as per Rory Sutherland's talk), how would you structure taxes so that people would be happier about paying them?
Adam Eran
I'd encourage reading this depression's Keynes, Australian Modern Monetary Theorist (MMT), Steve Keen. His "Debunking Economics" thoroughly demonstrates that neither the Austrian / austerian school, nor Friedman's Monetarism, nor the pseudo-Keynesians (actually Hicks and Walras are their predecessors) describe what corresponds to actual economic reality.
One example: With sovereign, fiat currency, Government creates currency out of nothing. It must create and spend it before it can demand its return in taxes. Taxes do *not* fund government, nor does borrowing, nor Chinese investors, etc. The U.S. government could literally mint a few trillion-dollar coins and pay the entire deficit tomorrow. It does not have "debt" in any conventional sense of that word (unless you know some families who can legally mint their debts' repayment).
This puts an entirely different light on taxation. Tax liabilities are what makes the money valuable. As another MMT'er, Warren Mosler, says, you could make business cards valuable if you had to have one to leave the conference room.
Notice that the above is not even slightly controversial, and describes history, not some theory. According to its first-ever audit, the U.S. central bank (the "Fed") created $16 - $29 trillion, out of nothing, to bail out the banks after Lehman went bankrupt.
The big question is not "Isn't this inflationary?"... The Lehman bailout exceeds TARP by orders of magnitude, nearly doubled the base money supply...and where's the inflation five years later?
Nope, the big question is: Why does Wall Street get a multi-trillion-dollar bailout at the drop of a hat while social safety net programs and revenue sharing get the shaft?
And when will we start treating money as a tool to serve the public rather than the banks?
Krisztián Pintér 200+
granted, if the government creates new money, it might be fair to give us some of it (and not only friends at wall street). but i suggest a better solution. stop creating new money.
Adam Eran
I should add that taxes do *not* fund government. Neither does government borrowing. And government "debt" is perhaps the most deceptive possible use of that word. Show me a family that can (legally) mint the means to repay its debt, and I'll say the term "debt" is accurate.
Therefore, taxes are not to fund government, but to make the money valuable. The British couldn't give away their money when they took over Nigeria until they initiated a "hut tax." ... Now the Nigerians wanted the money the Brits wanted to spend, so they could pay tax with it. Government has to spend first. And the "deficit" is really the money that the rest of the economy can hold.
This is pretty non-theoretical, too. Government in the U.S. can issue currency at will. The audit of the Fed disclosed that the U.S. central bank issued $16 - $29 trillion to make the financial markets whole in the wake of Lehman Brothers' collapse.
The trouble here: Only the banks got relief. Guaranteed employment would lift the entire economy, not just the oligarchs.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
we don't want jobs just for the sake of it. we want stuff. we want jobs in order to have stuff. one man's job is another man's stuff. that's why we earn a wage, because we provided some stuff for someone else, so in return, we get money to buy the stuff they produced.
a job is useless unless it is productive. if a job is productive, the free market can provide it. if a man can produce more value than his requested wage, there will be an entrepreneur lending the necessary capital, and then reap profit. so in this case, we don't need the government. the government is needed only to create such jobs that don't produce enough to cover the wage. but such jobs don't make more stuff. such jobs actually consume stuff. they produce negative profit, and makes us poorer in total. we don't want the government to provide jobs of that kind.
full employment is not the tool, high unemployment is not the cause. they are symptoms. a functioning economy has full employment if you only count involuntary unemployment. if it is not the case, there are some problems with the economy. for some reason, entrepreneurs can't hire. and that problem is to be fixed. you don't fix a problem by fixing the symptom. you can not outlaw the problem.
griffin tucker 10+
would this be along your lines of thinking, Mr. Harrison?
Herman Aparicio
Decentralization allows money to be spent more effectively, especially regarding local problems, as they don't face the economic calculation problem Your view that a libertarian world would not punish polluting corporations, the Madoffs of the world, etc. is misguided. In such a society, these wrongdoers would be punished according to tort and trespass law and fraud. The reason these bad things happen is due to corporatism and regulatory capture--i.e. corruption. Government is flawed from the beginning.
You also take a naive view that simply because technologies like the Internet and benefits like education, roads, etc. are funded by taxpayers, that they couldn't be provided by a free market. This is a gross logical leap. If government spending and taxes didn't crowd out private organizations, then of course they would provide them--especially if these goods and services are in high demand. Similarly we could all engage in "pro-social" behavior without staring down the barrel of a gun.
I encourage everyone to visit Mises.org. It has tons of great information and will teach you real economics.
Bill Harrison 10+
Here are some alternative views:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/business/darwin-the-market-whiz.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/opinion/sunday/fables-of-wealth.html
The slogans (it would be a charity to call them real ideas) that taxation is theft and "the free market" can solve all problems are bizarre and hollow. The discipline of economics is undergoing a sea change at the moment, but it's more in the direction of Robert Frank, Daniel Kahneman, and William Deriesiewicz than the anti-government propaganda from Mises.org.
To be fair, I believe markets are a powerful policy tool that can create good outcomes in a wide variety of cases. But there is a large role for government as well, when markets fail, as they often do.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
austrian economics is a life-long work, tens of thousands of written pages, of many individuals. starting with karl menger, through böhm-bawerk, von mises, rothbard and hayek, a thorough and sophisticated economic theory was built and explained in many books. since then, literally hundreds of books are available, ranging from the introductory materials to detailed analysis of specific subjects like the history of governments or banking, anti-trust laws, education or the business cycle.
i spent 9 month of my time studying this theory, and i've learned to respect those, who have or had 100 times the knowledge i have. from all of this vast library of knowledge, you managed to extract two tiny chips of conclusions, and you complain about shallowness? that is bold.
John Frum 30+
As for "bizarre and hollow", anything will sound bizarre and hollow if you have not made the effort to learn about it. The bill of rights sounds bizarre and hollow to tribals with strict social hierarchies.
AbdelRahman Siddig
if its money you pay 2.5% each year
if its been extracted from earth its like oil it reach 20%
if your weath is a cattle of caws ,camles ,sheep...ect each one has different calculation
and they is 8 categories of people whom deserved the Zakat
so Muslim are happy we he share part of his wealth and many people pay more than their percentage because they saw the rewards the more the pay the more their life become peaceful and blessed
Philip Pauley
many believe that if you are in the xx% "bracket" that is your tax rate and that there are "steps" in the tax rates.
In reality, your tax rate is always less than the bracket rates and there are no steps.
A better system would be simple tables to show the actual tax, or graphs to show tax rate percentages.
Jack Derbyshire 500+
To make people happy about paying their state and federal taxes, give them full control over where that money goes. Complete control. Let's say citizens receive a list of issues, projects, and initiatives. They then write in a percentage they would like to put towards each issue (yes, 0% is an option). However, they must still pay the same amount of total taxes.
With citizens able to choose where all of their taxes go, we can speculate on a few results:
1) Some crucial public projects would go underfunded and fail.
2) Taxpayers would be happier. They would have the power of choice, after all!
3) Politicians and government workers would have to find other jobs (after all, who would assign a percentage of their taxes towards governmental wages? [just a joke, I swear!] )
There is no chance of this system being implemented any time soon, but it's a nice thought! However, it doesn't take much to improve on our current system of taxation: "Put the money in the bag, or else! And I won't tell you what I'm spending it on, either!"
John Frum 30+
Sorry, but this shows a gross misunderstanding of libertarian ideology.
I recommend two things:
1. Read http://www.fee.org/library/not-yours-to-give-2/ to know why some of us have made the choice.
2. Observe how libertarians run their own lives. Not by talking to people on the internet... look in your own society.
Douglas De Carvalho
To re-engage people with their representative governments, since their is a lot of talk about how to bridge this gap, apart from the gap in happiness, wouldn't a progressively higher tax percentage YOU CHOOSE where to spend on catch on? Mathematical buffers can be put in to smooth down great volatility, but basically first year I pay taxes... whatever is calculated for me, be it 10 dollars or 10.000, I can choose in which area ie Health, Infrastructure, education, defense etc... (I recommend further breakdown - so that if the ONE issue I care about is Science, but I would like to see more mathematics there should even be a way for me to pin down a percentage of my taxes directly to that issue), after an initial year or so, one could build up to at least 50% of my taxes being spent THE WAY I WANT THEM spent. Let's be a little Post-modern here and embrace the world we live in and the age we live in too. We know game dynamics work. So why not apply it to this problem. I can have my own tax game -everyone should have their own profile with points, and every year we log in a few times to manage our scores. Imagine if we tie in how many seats MY PARTY got in the last election to how much weight my prioritization of my tax has? Imagine if my party can present me with different definitions and boxes i can tick? -If my representative cares a lot about the environment and I want to fund a new national park...why not give a specific box for his constituency to prioritize or not? Suddenly, although the local government in a large country can have outreach, local identity and involvement and a stronger sense of belonging and identity not to mention the stakeholder's position. Think about it. if someone only cares about military spending, let them funnel all their taxes towards that...if on the other hand I disagree with military spending altogether I would feel more happy if my money DOESN'T GO TO IT
Genevieve Tran 50+
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16757430
Brendan Winter
Too often, politicians appeal to our base instincts (greed, what's in it for me?) when, as this TED talk perfectly illustrates, they should be framing the debate around how helping others can actually make everyone involved better off.
Anne Dagen 10+
Beyond dealing with the basic functions which politicians are elected to manage, there's no excuse for the state to get involved in people's lives.
Actually, if you look into what really influences people's giving, you'll find that the media and social media are a lot more effective than any state department.
Anne Dagen 10+
The difference between tax and pro-social spending is quite simple - the former is enforced, the latter is voluntary. the various experiments quoted lack one critical control. In the experimental situation, the giving of money to spend on others is a novelty. As such that money is treated differently from money flowing through a run of the mill bureaucratic process.
There are examples of philanthropy being tied in to the tax system, and they do result in some increased gain for charities. That has a lot to do with the fact that people giving to a charity of their choice would rather see money go to the charity than to the taxman.
Bill Harrison 10+
But I don't see why 10% of your "taxes", for example, couldn't be pro-social/discretionary instead of it going into the general coffer to pay for things you disagree with. We obviously need taxes. But here's another option/category of payment - you're required to pay it, but you choose where it goes. And that might make people a little bit happier.
I've argued in the past that money is more like a vote than voting is, because it is a direct claim check on the allocation of social resources. If Warren Buffett wants thousands of people to paint his portrait every day, he can do that, because he has lots of "claim checks" on society's capital, which includes its human capital. The point being that if we value people being equal under the law, then we can maybe give people a little bit more control over where social resources are allocated, without letting people just keep it all for themselves. And maybe that would make people happier with their governments and the societies they live in.
Anne Dagen 10+
Bill Harrison 10+
Half the point of the program would be for the benefit of the giver, not the receiver, so I fail to see how that would be inefficient, given that there are a huge number of pro-social causes that need money and which people could choose to give to.
I get that you really dislike bureaucracy, but there are so many ways that this could be implemented with very few changes to how things already are. It seems like your objections can be easily met if you toggle any number of variables, but I reject the "no, it wouldn't work and it would be inefficient because bureaucracy/government are inefficient" argument. If you dislike government to the extent that you don't want it to work, then you can design it in such a way that it doesn't - which is why modern Republicans should never be put in positions of government.
Paul Peterson
Sergio Lissone
The government can put private alternatives to each of their programmes next to theirs on the list, so that people can make a more fair choice. So instead of welfare, you could choose to send $30/month of your salary on the Red Cross. Instead of funding the war in Iraq, you could fund a private army to arrest Kony. Note that everyone's overall donation amount can be public, so that people can identify anyone who is not paying their 'fair share', and such individuals can choose whether they want there hassle of any social stigma from this or not.
When the funding for a department dips below a certain level, it naturally is abolished or privatised. This would eliminate any immorality with taxation, but they are unlikely to do this, because insecure people who have gained power unjustly are afraid of being judged by the honest standards of a competitive free market.
Bill Harrison 10+
Basic economic theory regarding externalities, public goods, and the commons, justify making people pay for things they benefit from, even if they refuse to acknowledge that they benefit. Examples include standing armies, roads, environmental protections, an educated populace, etc.
In a free market, people over-consume goods that have negative externalities for other people, and under-consume goods that have positive externalities for other people. Correcting for these scenarios requires laws, which require a backdrop of force.
Markets fail massively, particularly in the absence of a state. Although I think there should be more "required" voluntary spending, I think we also need taxation for that reason.
Anne Dagen 10+
Then apply tax justification to your new tax suggestion. Who decides what type of spend is acceptable under this new tax rule? If these causes justify tax support, why are they not supported by the existing tax regime? What happens if a tax cause doesn't get any support?
Then it's a situation which would require a huge bureacratic overhead to setup, manage and police. How would that be funded? Would a proportion of the spend intended for these causes be funnelled off to support a proliferating bureaucracy? How would you prevent that new bureaucracy from losing focus and becoming a self-sustaining behemoth?
And more fundamentally - has it ever been shown that giving people someone else's money, in the absence of a real personal relationship, makes them happy?
Bill Harrison 10+
As for your other concerns - additional bureaucracy, who decides what is acceptable pro-social spending, giving people money that isn't yours, I have a few responses.
First, it wouldn't necessarily even have to be enforced at all by a bureaucracy, it could just be a suggestion. Imagine that you're refunded the first 5 dollars of your income taxes every year, with the suggestion that you use it for some pro-social cause, because research shows that doing that will make you happier and better off. You don't even have to do it, you can opt out if you want. But the default setting will be that people will choose some pro-social cause and they will be slightly better off for it.
And second, you can toggle the switch of "yours or someone else's money" via tax refunds or some other means, and you can also toggle the personal relationship switch depending on the circumstances or charity. In the TED talk, apparently people were made happier by giving people someone else's money, in the absence of a (pre-existing) personal relationship.
And the net result would be that people would just see a 5 dollar bill once a year (theirs or the public's money - who cares?) with a note saying that they would probably be happier if they spent it pro-socially in some way; and because that would be the default option, lots of people would tend to do it; and maybe that would make people happier and more charitable over time.
Basically, we're wired to be happy when we behave pro-socially, and paying taxes is pro-social behavior that we already require, so would it be possible to implement a social policy that would make people happier about behaving pro-socially, given that such a policy would be less restrictive than taxation?
Anne Dagen 10+
As regards being wired to be happy when bahaving pro-socially and paying taxes being pro-social behaviour - I can guarantee to find enough people who are unhappy when they pay taxes to prove that that statement is in no way an absolute verity.
Bill Harrison 10+
As to your first point, I don't necessarily see much additional bureaucracy, given that people (at least in the US) already receive tax returns every year. The way it would work would be similar to what Larry Lessig has suggested with the "democracy voucher" - just giving people a bit more say in what they do with their money could potentially have some positive effects.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/opinion/in-campaign-financing-more-money-can-beat-big-money.html
So the idea that you would need some massive new bureaucracy (it would be handled by the same department that does tax returns) in order to implement this isn't necessarily right.
Sergio Lissone
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A
William Baldwin
Sergio Lissone
Secondly, the government uses moral arguments as the source of its power - that is why people support it. Government long ago lost the argument from efficiency or effectiveness all they have is the argument from morality ("We need government because it is good"). Interestingly, this is exactly what psychopaths do: once you see through their charm and see how crappy their real world actions and results are, they will tend to shift to moral/guilt tripping arguments to keep you hooked.
BTW democracy is still violates the logical fallacy of the appeal to popularity, because it still involves people imposing their will on those who didn't agree to the democratic framework at all, with the justification that "The majority voted on it, so therefore it's right". No redefining nonsense here: democracy is to civilised society what gang-rape is to lovemaking.
Bill Harrison 10+
But the fact that we do have constitutional protections against what other people can do to you no matter how rich or powerful they are, means that we are better off with the rule of law than without it.
In a stateless world, rich families / large groups of people cooperating would band together to hire armies to take everyone else's land and property. You could say that that's immoral, and they would laugh at you.
In the absence of a strong government, you end up with warlords fighting for control, with no rule of law in place and everyone is worse off as a result (see, for example, Somalia). With strong governments in which people look after one another, you have healthy, educated people with high literacy rates and amazing quality of life (See, for example, Nordic countries).
I fully agree with you that there are many things governments do and have done that are completely terrible - the Iraq war, the drug war, mass incarceration of poor people, etc. And again, I try to change those things via democratic means.
But because we are all on the same boat and we all have to live on the same planet, the rule of law requires that people who blatantly violate the rules can be punished or coerced, even if they disagree with the rules in the first place.
Imagine a narcissist on a boat in the middle of the ocean. Everyone else on the boat agrees to a certain set of rules about how they will ration food, settle disputes, etc. Even if the narcissists thinks he's better than the rules, he will be punished - because opting out is behaviorally no different from breaking the rule. And we're all in the same boat, so to speak.
Coercion is always wrong, though, you might say - we can live without states! Well, you can tell that to the large, wealthy, cooperative army taking your life, liberty, and property without giving you any due process whatsoever.
Sergio Lissone
We can't base the foundations of civilisation on lifeboat scenarios, because life in general is not a lifeboat situation. I have to say that a narcissist on a lifeboat is likely to charm himself into the leadership role, hoard resources, attention and power for himself, and manipulating the majority into sacrificing people as he sees necessary. Don't you see? It's people like him who MAKE the rules. Just like politicians.
Regarding your sci-fi scenario of a corporate army rising up in a free market society, I call this argument the "Argument form imagination" - the idea that I have to disprove any scenario you can imagine in order to vindicate a free market society. I don't. All I have to do, patiently and consistently, is point out that in the background behind all of your arguments, justifications and reasons, your trump card is a loaded gun pointed at everyone who disagrees. Dramatic maybe, but THAT is the truth about arguing for government. When people finally see it, they will shrink away in horror and demand better. Most people don't debate the efficiency of murder or theft: they just know it's immoral, and that's as far as the discussion needs to go.
Bill Harrison 10+
I'm not even contesting that the rule of law requires a backdrop of force - if you break the law, you are punished. But in a state, there are at least rules for the application of force, whereas in anarchy, there aren't.
Free markets require a backdrop of rules people follow when things don't work out perfectly - contract law, courts, judges, and police officers to enforce those rules even when the parties at stake disagree.
On top of which, reputation isn't perfect - you can sully someone's reputation when they haven't done anything wrong, and then your fate depends upon public opinion rather than the facts. And that's, in my view, worse than living under the rule of law, where I don't have to be popular in order to survive, because I'm guaranteed rights as a minority, including a right to a fair trial under a judge, paid for by taxes. And we have laws against libel and slander for that reason, too.
William Baldwin
How is it good for society to expand on a sector that is dependent upon government subsidies and private charity?
How does denying an individual or company the opportunity to fail and learn a valuable lesson become good for society?
All you are talking about is Industrializing Compassion. What happens when something is industrialized? Isn't someone getting exploited?
Anyway, the path you are on will only lead to fewer producers and more dependents. Before you expend more energy in this direction try studying human nature. Human nature will dictate the consequences of the "pro-social" avenue you are on.
Good luck on your journey.
Bill Harrison 10+
As per this talk, it wouldn't matter how people spent pro-socially, just that they did so, and they would be better off for it. And this would tend to make people happier, on average, and possibly give them a sense of how interdependent people are. And because they could choose where the money would go, it's hard to see how one particular "sector" would expand. Industrialization, in my mind, implies standardization, and this would be anything but that.
So, I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about with "expand on a sector that is dependent upon government subsidies and private charity," but (back to the question) do you really think a policy like this would increase the number of "dependents" relative to "producers"? If you're talking about a "sector" of "dependent people" I think this is an insane and broad brush to paint with - we're all interdependent. You probably don't grow all your own food or make all your own clothing or produce all your own electricity - we all live off of the (legal, technological, educational, scientific, etc.) infrastructure created by people who came before us, as well as the labor of others. We're all interdependent.
For the record, I reject the Ayn Rand framework entirely - here is an article by Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz on rising income inequality in the face of growing productivity of the average American:
http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105
What you produce is not at all the same as what you take - they are very distinct activities.
William Baldwin
We are all interdependent. Yet, to facillitate the means by which people are able to be involved in the marketplace only gives way to more corruption and "exploitation". When an individual does not earn their own money they then do not treat that money the same way. Easy come, easy go. Giving people money only makes them more easily used to enrichen the wealthy.
The reason for the convolution of the modern day is because the rich and powerful through legislation are getting competitive advantages and gaining access to new customers; example, the world markets.
I have never read Ayn Rand, though I have wanted to. Nevertheless, I have seen the damage social programs have done to individuals and areas where they are reliant upon those social programs. They are void of ambition and imagination to create their own world. They wait for the next check to continue their monthly existence and are unhappy with the world around them. All the while they are looking for someone to blame for their meager existence.
What you produce is not at all the same as what you take - they are very distinct activities.
I do understand where you are coming from. People have to have the best of everything and consume more than they produce. They drive diesel pickups when they do not need them. They eat till they are so fat they can't move. And the list goes. Where we differ is why this is this way.
Prosperity is a double edged sword. When individuals do not have the developed character to withstand the temptations of a prosperous economy they will be eaten up by it. Just because we want something does not mean we should be given what we want.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
murray rothbard would be a more clean source, but i most recommend henry hazlitt, and his famous "economics in one lesson"
Sergio Lissone
Ayn Rand essentially demonstrated that you don't need a government, that it is the purest manifestation of evil. However, instead of going all the way with this idea, she instead stopped at monarchism - the idea of a very, very small government, which is a big mistake I beleive. Also, she overlooked the emotional side of things - she was correct in matters of the ego and not letting your emotions blindly dictate your actions, but she did not express the kind of complete portrayal of a happy human being that a philosopher should.
Another great philosopher is Stephan Molyneux: he combines rational philosophy, Austrian economics and modern psychology into an intellectually consistent framework. Here is his best video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P772Eb63qIY
Krisztián Pintér 200+
for example. rand idolizes entrepreneurs. while in reality, we have to "worship" entrepreneur function, but not any specific entrepreneur. we all know that businessmen are far far from being the nice guys. they are the ones who happily stand in queues at senators' offices with large bags of money, and they never complain about it. they are the ones who put poisons in our food if they can, and they are the bernie madoffs and other bigtime bandits who happily steal what they can lay a hand on. corporate figures are not the good guys. they are not the heroes. most of them are just opportunists, as everyone else.
capitalism is not good because it makes such figures the leaders. capitalism is good exactly because it keeps such figures in check way better than the state can.
Sergio Lissone
One could claim that smoking is a healthy pastime, since millions of people do it. However, knowing the dangers of smoking, we instead say that smoking is not a healthy pastime despite the fact that millions do it.
One could claim that slavery is morally justified if the majority of people within society support it, or at least do not oppose it (as has been the case in the past).
At a time in history when most people believed the world was flat, one could have claimed the world is flat because the majority believed it.
Bill Harrison 10+
Also, as Wikipedia notes, democracy is an exception; democracy is predicated on equal rights under the law, and by extension, because your vote counts only as much as any other one person's vote, the popularity of a view within systems of representative democracy is what counts.
So in a democracy, if everyone votes that we need to pay taxes in order to have roads or publicly funded research or police forces, then that is what happens. There are generally constitutional provisions that keep a majority of people from abusing minorities. But for the most part, the fact that we have to live together as equals under the law, with one man having one vote, means that the popular will is what rules.
You can say, well, that doesn't speak to the correctness of the view that taxation is justified - if everyone thought rape was justified, that wouldn't make it right.
But in the context of taxation and democratic systems, it kind of does, because there are always trade-offs involved in any sort of public policy argument, and given that reality, and given that we all have to live on the same planet together, I favor policies that promote the greatest good for the greatest number of people over time, and equal justice under the law.
If you benefit from public goods like roads, clean air, educated people, armed forces, etc. then you should have to pay for them, even if you are opposed to taxation on principle. If you disagree, then it is your job in a democracy to convince the majority that we don't need those things. I agree with you that governments spend our money and resources on idiotic wars, prisons, and other things that I fundamentally disagree with, and I attempt to change that via public discourse, but that is distinct from me saying that taxation or democracy are unjustified.
Nilesh Tailor
Give from your heart and it will cause you happiness because your are genuinely giving a portion of your income to a good cause. But if you were required to give a portion then you would find that you would grugingly give money especially when you might be overwhelmed by unexpected bills and debts.
edward long 100+
Bill Harrison 10+
1.) People who believe that taxation is theft and property is always justly acquired (objection noted, libertarians!)
2.) People who believe that taxation is justified, but who dislike to some extent how their tax dollars are spent (probably most people)
3.) People who believe that taxation is justified, pro-social spending, and are therefore happy to pay (probably most people)
So maybe we should reframe the question this way:
Given that taxes are justified, pro-social spending, how can we get more people to be happier about paying them? Can we structure taxes in such a way that people get the same happiness benefits as other pro-social spending?
Really, I'm just interested in the disconnect between pro-social spending making people happier and people who hate paying taxes given that it is pro-social spending, and whether there could be ways to bridge that gap.
And if not, if the concept of taxation means being forced to pay for things that you might disagree with (like roads, or research, or navies), then maybe there should be a third category of payment (pro-social spending) where you are forced to pay for things that you DO agree with, and which make you happy. And maybe that third category would tend to make people happier and more pro-social generally, as opposed to anti-social and selfish within their communities.
And finally, just because it came up in the video conversation, here is the Daniel Kahneman piece talking about how $75,000 is essentially a happiness ceiling, because beyond getting your basic needs met, our needs are primarily social in nature:
http://gmj.gallup.com/content/150671/Happiness-Is-Love-and-75K.aspx
Which is itself a roundabout argument for requiring pro-social spending from people beyond a certain level of income, if you believe that tax policies should be structured for the good of society as a whole and not the unlimited autonomy of a few.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
why would anyone force me to pay for something that makes me happy? i pay for it without force.
about that silly article by kahneman: try to tell james cameron that his pursuit for diving deep into the ocean and see the titanic or the mariana trench does not give him any satisfaction, so he should just stop that. this is so detached from reality, i wonder how can someone say this with a straight face. or, i know how, actually. he appeals those, who lack the necessary empathy, and believe that rich = luxury yacht.
Comment deleted
Bill Harrison 10+
You can feign or take real offense that I criticize your views on the basis that they lack characteristics of a healthy view of the world. Libertarian views don't taking into account ecological factors allowing for wealth/property (autism), don't empathize with people's needs (sociopathy), and allow the wealthy to skirt equal justice under the law (narcissism). I'm not calling you a sociopath, a narcissist, or an autistic person. But libertarian views have those characteristics (which stem from a lack of empathy for poor people generally, either because you can't or won't empathize with poor people's needs, equating them to rich people's wants), and you can choose to respond to those criticisms or not.
James Cameron going into the Marianas trench doesn't refute Kahneman's thesis, that 75K is all you need to be happy on average, if you have friends.
Which brings me back to the TED talk and the point of this conversation, which is that pro-social spending makes people happy, so how can we structure taxes and public policy in such a way to encourage people to want to spend pro-socially/ pay taxes, given that taxes are essentially pro-social spending?
You say you can't make intersubjective comparisons of utility (or you refuse to do so), I say you can. You say there is no public property, I say there is. And until one of us changes one of those fundamental views, it is unlikely that we'll see eye to eye on this.
pat gilbert 100+
Comment deleted
Fritzie Reisner 100+
But should they? Is it socially optimal for individuals' specific choices for their tax dollars to drive social spending? Is there a risk that better marketed causes would draw resources to a cause that may have merit but not in proportion to the attention it draws? Is there a risk that worthy work without substantial marketing to the public would lose out.? Would spending become more or less political than it is now?
Bill Harrison 10+
I didn't imagine this necessarily replacing the tax system, but rather, supplementing it in some fashion. I think the logic of public goods, the commons, infrastructure we all benefit from, the externalities of educating others, interdependence, etc. entail that people should be taxed to pay for public goods even if they don't choose to do so.
Not to be a broken record here, but people hate paying taxes, even if those taxes fund education. Yet, giving even small amounts of money, say, to classrooms and teachers via donorschoose would probably tend to make people happier, either because of gratitude, or people can see the impact, and they get to choose directly where their money goes.
People should be happy about pro-social spending - but they are not happy about paying taxes, which is arguably pro-social spending. I'm just trying to tease out some possible ways of closing that gap.
Thanks for your comments, by the way.
Fritzie Reisner 100+
Bill Harrison 10+
And I agree with you that giving people discretion over small amounts won't do much to correct against those kinds of issues.
But that said, I don't think that just because something won't completely fix a problem, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done. If people are made happier by spending 5 dollars on someone else, then that small bit of pro-social behavior, per person per year, might add up to a friendlier and tighter-knit nation over time.
And I think that having a tighter-knit nation could potentially have some positive repercussions, particularly given that we are so divided right now politically, we don't always see how interdependent we all are.
Right now, Republicans would rather see the economy fail under a Democratic president rather than tax the rich even one penny - so notwithstanding the millions of suffering unemployed people, they block construction spending that would fix our crumbling infrastructure and create jobs, because they claim the rich are "job creators" and taxing them would decrease employment - so we can't afford to invest in our infrastructure anymore, but we can afford to decrease taxes on the rich. It's absurd.
It's almost as though they don't see the value of government or of taxation. It's almost as though there are interest groups that profit when people are antisocial a la the "philosophy" of Ayn Rand. It's almost as though there's no charity in their hearts.
I don't think we will be able to solve any of the major issues afflicting us as a nation (including the ridiculous ways our tax money is spent) until we understand that we're all in the same boat and we should look out for one another. We need more people with charitable hearts.
Verble Gherulous 20+
My apologies to prostitutes with drug addictions, but they're the poster children for conservative hate.
Again, not to sound defeatest, but unless there is a fundamental change in how we view each other, and really understand that we are interdependent, and that our survival is communcal, not individual, and if we seriously change the way we look at our resources (i.e. that we are stewards instead of owners) then I am afraid that we will not develop the charitable hearts that are essential to your proposal.
Quick story,though, illustrating the point: Two co-workers I overheard once, said, "Sorry I'm late from lunch, I gave my sandwich to this homeless guy and had to get back in line for another."
The other co-worker said, "Why'd you give it to him? You should tell him to go out and get a job!"
The first one said,"Don't really know why I gave him my sandwich. He was asking for money, but I had this sandwich in my hand, and the thought just hit me, 'wow, I'm a lucky guy. I could give this bum my sandwich and go back and BUY myself another. I am THAT rich. And I just fiund myself stuffing the sandwich into his hand!"
"That's crazy."
"i know. Then he asked me what was on the sandwich, if it had mayo or not. I said 'Dude! It's a free sandwich! Do you want it or not?'"
Fritzie Reisner 100+
In terms of the argument that just because something doesn't fix a whole problem doesn't mean we should not do it, of course that is true. What is more specifically true is that the costs of doing it, which may be real and large, need to be weighed against the benefits. The implementation costs are something that could, in principle be estimated. The overall effect on resource allocation and the desirability of the changes one might anticipate are harder to predict and very important from the standpoint of the public interest.
Fritzie Reisner 100+
Verble Gherulous 20+
First of all, it is a Biblical mandate to pay your taxes. Taxes in America are for the common good, and they keep the country maintained. I think it is sad that we have allowed ourselves to become convinced that Mr Evil government is taking away our money. Refusing to pay taxes is not only un-Christian but also un-American, and should again be seen as such.
Second of all, since American society views anybody who struggles as being lazy or at best unlucky "too bad, buddy". We are less inclined to want to be required to assist. Or even worse, should we be requiredto give additional funds directly for the support of others, then we would in our arrogance try to place restrcitions on the use of the funds, such as only giving to certain groups, etc.
Were something like this ever to work, we would have to shift our thinking from a belief in the indiividual right to have as much stuff as we can, to one in which we no longer see our earnings as our own, but as something to help for the good of all. We also must stop judging each other. . . But that just has to end regardless.
And before any Libertarians start spouting me out as a commie,I'd humbly ask them to understand that I got this crazy notion from the Word of God.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
lucky it is nothing else than the word of god, thus having no relevance to me. otherwise it would sound really crazy.
Verble Gherulous 20+
Yes, I'll admit it sounds nuts as all git-out, but what I am proposing is this: the only way that we will as a community agree to the plan of spending a portion of our income helping others is when we viewothers as more valuable than our income. The perfect way to do that is to see it not as "our" earnings but something that has been given to us, that we should use for the best effect, which is to help others. The idea of divorcing ourselves of the idea that we "earned" anything, I quote scripture, but I've found similar ideas in karma, the kindness of the universe, dumb luck, etc, Just think of all the money you get just as something that happened to come your way just because the universe is magnanimous.
When you have reached that level of thought, you will no longer see money as something to be used wholly and singularly for your benefit. You will see yourself as a steward of a resource, and the. You will see this resource as something that needs to be "paid forward" for example, in direct application to make other peoples' lives as fortunate as your own.
Yes, again, you will find it crazy. But it is precisely because you and many others find it crazy that I realise that what is proposed in this question will never come to pass. And that, good sir, is a cause of great sorrow.
William Baldwin
David Hamilton 50+
25% of our money goes to defense... That means buying weapons which are no longer used for defense, but wars of aggression... In your personal life, are you spending 25% of your money on weapons?
I'll assume no.
So... Don't you invest your money more wisely, and less violently than the government? Don't they waste enough of you money needlessly murdering people and erasing our constitution?
Is it really important to you that we get drug addicts off their parents couches and into prison cells? I find it incredibly convenient that god wants us to give the government more money... Especially since it's fighting his holy war for him.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Verble Gherulous 20+
I should assume you should know by now my stance on war. It is anathema to God (the true God, that is) and the money we spend on war (sanitized by the word "defense") is a twisted sickness.
The reason why Jesus teaches us to pay our taxes is 1) to understand our place in the world, 2) to keep everything in perspective as to what's really important (a) not to be tied to the possession of money and (b) submit our souls and lives to God and our physical bodies to the state, and 3) by all this, so we can be good examples of His grace and His love.
Instead of all this "we're angry so we shouldn't have to pay our taxes because all the government does is drone bomb and buy catregena coke for secret service agents and dare to give us all socialized medicine" what we are required to do it act. Get involved. Go into politics at whatever level. If you don't like how the government is spending your money they tell them, That's part of what OWS is all about. They were saying look, these guys already got thier money, why is the gvmt giving them more of ours?
And again, your comment about me just wanting to get lazy junkie off the couch and into prison iis evidence that Mr Harrison's premise will be terrifically difficult to implement, given that we have already made such qualitative judgments on other people.
Vasanthkumar Mysoremath
Sergio Lissone
frederic braat
Maybe ..... a way to give recognition is that the government could send an occasional proclamation to some of its citizens thanking them for their contribution to a specific project and this personal contact will undoubtedly provide the same amounts of amount of happiness as does giving.
We All humans share the same DNA and are family. Many of our flaws are geonomatically passed to us diversity makes some well suited to play this present game and others not so well suited and leads them into unwise decisions. We could punishing our family members and help them. Unlike the libertarians I be say we are obliged to help to pay for our protection.
I agree with the facts that we need more effort going to help. Then I think good governance should do it through taxation and we should all feel proud to be contribution each to our ability.
And lastly the time honored trickle down effect has not worked ... maybe too much water retainers in the subsoil
Ben Peterson
frederic braat
Sergio Lissone
Rather than get into a discussion over the definitions of what property and force really are, consider that libertarianism is a social and moral framework that a 5 year old could perfectly understand, with simple concepts of property ("It's mine!"), the immorality of initiated force ("He started it!"), and universality ("But you said he could do that, so why can't I?"). It takes an adult mind with 12 years of 'education' from schools and hypocrisy from his parents to betray the integrity of simple consistency and accept the complex mess of unprocessed contradictions known as "statism". This involves justifications for outrageous concepts like forced education of children, a social contract that no participants signed, forced taxes to pay for what some want, war etc that any private person would be seen as insane or evil if he carried out himself.
However you want to define property, create a new word if you wish to describe what Libertarians mean by it, and then consider their position more thoroughly, this approach can be helpful when using words that have been misused by too many groups. Similarly, try inventing words to replace capitalism or force if it helps you get to the core of the issue from the libertarian perspective, then you may be able to see what we're harping on about.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
anyway, well argued.