Clarification

The debate over whether people want higher taxes on themselves is, I think, slipping back and forth between two debates: a normative and a positive one. I started out with a positive claim:

What most of us are really in favor of is higher taxes on other people. If we wanted higher taxes on ourselves, we'd give the money to charity.

This is simply observationally true. People do not voluntarily give money to the government; polls show that most people support raising taxes on only a small fraction of the electorate. (Yes, yes, they're rich. Okay, and? The observation still holds: most people want other peoples' taxes raised, not their own. Whether this desire is justified is irrelevant.)

Henry Farrell, and others, stepped in to complain that I, like, totally didn't understand that people behave different collectively than individually. This does not, in fact, negate my point; it supports it. Most people are not concerned with remedying the injustice of their own high income; they want large public goods that can only be secured by taking a lot of money from other people. They are willing to kick in their own money if they have to in order to secure the coalition, or because they think this is fair. But they are primarily concerned not with their own contribution, but with that of others. This will not be a surprising observation for anyone who has ever lived in a group house.

This does, however, raise an interesting normative point, into which I have now been sidetracked without quite noticing: should you, if you think that your taxes are too low, voluntarily give that money to the government? The answer, I think, is yes, for reasons that I've laid out in previous posts. But that is separate from the positive observation I stand by: people are more interested in levying taxes on others than they are in paying taxes themselves.

Comments

Give EXTRA money to the government.

Excuse me.

LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ahem.

Back to regularly scheduled "debates".

Posted by FreedomLover | February 22, 2008 3:27 PM

I guess this stands if you are talking about raising taxes out of some moral obligation--i.e. if one believes it is a good in and of itself that the rich become less so, regardless of what the money is spent on (coughezracough). But that's been the conservative/libertarian strawman since time immemorial. The vast majority of people who support higher taxaction levels do so because of what could be done with the money, even if it's something as simple as closing the budget gap.

Given that:

1. no marginally useful government program could be funded by the typical liberal voluntarily doubling their check and

2. there are about nine orders of magnitude between the axes of the government's and any individual's marginal utility curves for money,

there is no gain whatsoever to anyone outside of the Forbes top 400 increasing their tax bill. If one supports universal health care and is willing to raise taxes for it, your point is completely irrelevant. I guess if there's some plurality of statist liberals that wants to give more to the government out of some sort of civic-individual bonding you'd be right, but even then the point gets fuzzy if they have any policy goals whatsoever

Posted by Jack | February 22, 2008 3:32 PM

The problem is that the evidence that supports your argument also supports the equally valid (and, to many of us, more intuitive) argument that people are only willing to make a contribution if they know that others will make a contribution as well. They are primarily concerned not with taking other people's money, but with the provision of a public good that neither they nor anyone else could generate on their own. These arguments are not, by the way, necessarily mutually exclusive. But they might well be, and yours might well be wrong.

Posted by matt_c | February 22, 2008 3:34 PM

...and we are back to you not understanding what a collective action problem is.

That people do not voluntarily give money to the government is not evidence that they would not prefer higher levels of public goods provision, and thus higher taxes.

May the circle be unbroken.

Posted by bob | February 22, 2008 3:34 PM

In what way does what you said, Bob, disagree with what I said?

Posted by Megan McArdle | February 22, 2008 3:37 PM

I think your observation is true but trivial. The position in question is "I am willing to pay higher taxes provided everyone else does too." You point out that people holding this position generally don't unilaterally send checks to the government. You don't explicitly state that the position in question is thus somehow invalidated or made incoherent, but you certainly seem to be implying that it is, which I think is what is getting under everyone's skin.

Posted by stoneyforest | February 22, 2008 3:40 PM

But they're rich, they should pay their fair share! Notice, I'm not rich (under any possible definition), it is "they" who are rich and should thus pay more taxes.

Sincerely,

Median Voter

Posted by GU | February 22, 2008 3:44 PM

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems obvious that _nobody_ is interested in paying taxes for the sake of paying taxes, right? All of the normative arguments on taxes seem to come from the right - property is sacred, etc. The arguments _for_ taxes are all instrumental - I want more public services, and am willing to accept higher tax rates in order to have them.

Donating money to the government won't result in increased public services _to me_, and is therefore irrational. Right?

Posted by bluebuckeye | February 22, 2008 3:45 PM

if i understand your post, you still seem to think that the fact that people do not voluntarily give money to the government is evidence of something about how much people would like to pay in taxes. which it is not.

Posted by bob | February 22, 2008 3:48 PM

Suppose that one day, whilst stroking an antique lamp at a flea market, I happen to observe that I were willing to pay another $100 in taxes if all kids were covered by Medicare. A genie who resembles Shaquille O'Neal appears and says that I can have my wish, but I must choose one of two options: (A) my taxes go up $100 and everyone's taxes go up in the same fashion; or (B) only my taxes go up by $100 and the genie pays the balance of the program cost to the federal government, leaving my fellow citizens free and clear. I think that's the hypothetical you're posing, and I suppose I agree that it would be churlish to pick (A). But, per stoneyforest, I'm not sure what it proves about anything.

Posted by alkali | February 22, 2008 3:48 PM

Let me reframe this using another issue:

Hypothetically:

I am an American soldier. I think the U.S. should send American soldiers to intervene in Darfur. In fact, I write a letter to the editor saying "The U.S. should send me to Darfur."

Megan then points out that I could have gone to Darfur by myself, passed out bags of rice, and fought against the janjaweed. Since I haven't, clearly I not really interested in going to Darfur, but in having other people go to Darfur.

As Megan frames the issue, technically she's right, but in a very real sense she's missing the point. It's impossible to read this "observation" and not hear "and therefore people who say their own taxes should be raised are hypocrites" tacked on to the end. That addition, of course, isn't explicitly stated (and may not be intended, though I doubt it.)

Posted by stoneyforest | February 22, 2008 3:51 PM

Yes, but you're all missing MM's point.

If I think taxes on people like me should be $5000 higher, that's a collective action problem.

Fine. No argument!

But if I also believed the the government would spend my $5000 better than I can, I can avoid the collective action problem by just giving them the money to spend.

If you don't believe that (which, clearly, people don't), and yet you do want higher taxes, the conclusion is that what you actually value is the government spending the money of people like you, not your own.

Posted by Mike Earl | February 22, 2008 3:53 PM

I think the problem is that some people believe the government can spend money wisely or that the government is not collecting enough revenue for important programs and that any additional taxes would be used to fund important programs and not the waste that a lot of current taxes are spent on.

Those people are suffering from wishful thinking or some kind of delusion.

The rest of us don't want our taxes increased because we see how wasteful government spending is currently and don't want to enable more pork projects and other forms of wasteful spending.

I can waste my own money, thank you very much.

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | February 22, 2008 3:59 PM

"What most of us are really in favor of is higher taxes on other people. If we wanted higher taxes on ourselves, we'd give the money to charity."

In some sort of a crazy assed world, I guess it would be nice if I got to live in a great house and got great schools, but got other people to pay for it for me. If being a libertarian means getting stuff for nothing, then sign me up, baby!

I want to live in a town with good schools, so I'm willing to pay more taxes for it. I care more about education than cars or shoes, so I like to give my money to the town to purchase books for my kids and pay qualified teachers. I care so much about schools, that I'm willing to pay more money in taxes to improve the quality of schools even more. Even if my taxes were to double, it would still be cheaper than private schools for two kids.

I regretted writing that post about wanting to pay more taxes. Not because I want to pay less taxes. I regretted writing it because not everybody can afford to pay more in taxes, and I hate waving our privileged position around.

Posted by laura | February 22, 2008 4:06 PM

Actually, Earnest Iconoclast, what you are talking about is a principal-agent problem. It is, of course, true that solving a collective action problem often creates a principal-agent problem. Whether the former is worth the latter is a question that I think liberals and libertarians can pretty easily agree to disagree on.

Posted by matt_c | February 22, 2008 4:11 PM

Mike Earl -

The problem with that line of reasoning is that the answer to "Can the government spend my $5000 better than I can?" is dependent on what the $5000 is being spent on. If it's being spent on my personal consumption, clearly the answer is no. If I'm willing to spend $5000 on constructing a massive interstate highway system or overthrowing Saddam Hussein, the answer is probably "yes", which leads us right back to the collective action problem.

My point is, for certain goods and under certain circumstances, clearly, people do believe that the government can spend their money better than they can, which in large part negates the distinction you're trying to make between collective action problems and whatever else it is you're talking about.

Posted by stoneyforest | February 22, 2008 4:11 PM

"Most people are not concerned with remedying the injustice of their own high income; they want large public goods that can only be secured by taking a lot of money from other people."

No one said anything about "remedying the injustice of their own high income," it's about remedying the lack of money in the government's account.

Posted by rapid | February 22, 2008 4:13 PM

I'm not sure that I accept the premise that there's too many people who, when they say "My taxes are too low," don't actually mean "Taxes on people like me are too low." I suppose that if you, personally, feel a moral obligation to pay more in taxes, then, yeah, knock yourself out I guess.

But I'd suspect that 99.9% of people who say that they should pay more taxes really mean one of two things. The distribution-oriented one is, "It's unfair that people like me make so much money and don't have to give more of it back to the community." If that's the case, then yes, as a normative matter you should either contribute more taxes voluntarily or give your money to charity. The public goods-oriented one is, "It's too bad that the government doesn't have enough money to provide public goods X, Y and Z that I'd really like for them to provide. I'd be willing to pay more in taxes if it meant that they could." As a normative matter, I don't see why such a person should voluntarily pay more in taxes, because I doubt that even Warren Buffet could finance a large government mandate entirely out of his own pocket.

Posted by Bill H | February 22, 2008 4:18 PM

there are about nine orders of magnitude between the axes of the government's and any individual's marginal utility curves for money

If liberals believe that additional taxes are 99.9999999% deadweight loss, why are they still liberals?

Posted by Paul Zrimsek | February 22, 2008 4:28 PM

It's also interesting that while it's primarily Democrats who indicate a willingness to pay higher taxes, weren't red staters shown to be much more liberal in their charitable giving.

Posted by Severely Ltd. | February 22, 2008 4:39 PM

rapid,

No one said anything about "remedying the injustice of their own high income," it's about remedying the lack of money in the government's account.

I'm not sure what claim the government has to money in it's account. What people want are service the government pays for and provides. And if the two are out of sync, there are plenty of solutions: raise tax revenue (through base broadening, higher rates, incentives, etc), reduce spending (cut programs, increase efficiency, fire people) or finance it. They all have externalities, they all have pro's and con's, but they all exist.

Personally, if all the government did was provide roads, lights, schools, defense and some social safety net, I'd be more than happy to chip in a few percentage points of my income. And in fact, I'm not against LOCAL taxes, as they are mush more responsive to conditions on the ground and pay for services like that.

What we have now is a behemoth of a government doing those core things and nine billion other things I don't much care for. In addition to (an at some level because of) that they are doing these things inefficiently, slowly, and expensively. I'd prefer they get that fixed before telling me they have a revenue problem.

Posted by Skullberg | February 22, 2008 4:47 PM

"What most of us are really in favor of is higher taxes on other people. If we wanted higher taxes on ourselves, we'd give the money to charity."

A perfect example of this is the behavior of Warren Buffett. Buffett publicly complains that the wealthy don't pay enough (though in his most recent letter to Berkshire Hathaway Shareholders, he expressed pride in the amount of taxes his company paid), but he avoids paying billions of dollars in capital gains taxes by donating shares of Berkshire to the Gates Foundation. Buffett is obviously a generous man, having committed to give most of his wealth to charity. But if he really thought the wealthy should pay more in taxes, why wouldn't he lead by example? A simple way to do so would be to sell his shares of Berkshire first, let the government collect its capital gains taxes, and then donate the net cash to the Gates Foundation. The foundation could then reinvest the cash in BRK if it so desired.

Posted by Dave | February 22, 2008 4:55 PM

"And in fact, I'm not against LOCAL taxes, as they are mush more responsive to conditions on the ground and pay for services like that."

Depends where you live. Around here a large chunk goes to pay for six-figure pensions for cops and school principals.

Posted by Fred | February 22, 2008 4:58 PM

What we have now is a behemoth of a government doing those core things and nine billion other things I don't much care for.

But does the fact that you don't much care for them mean they shouldn't get done?

If we tried to organize society in such a way that people only were asked to contribute to programs they believed in, what kind of society would that be? Maybe I work from home, grow my own food and live alone; what possible need for roads, lights, schools, and all the other things you list as core responsibilities of government would I have? By your reasoning, I should not be asked to pay for them. But then how can I claim to have any kind of relationship with you? What kind of society is that?

It's not one. And for good or ill, the days when you could just move West to get away from society's demands are gone. There's no frontier anymore. The only choice you have before you, realistically, is which society do you want to belong to. If the society you live in pursues programs you disagree with, argue against them. Go to jail if that's what it takes, if it's so high a principle that you simply refuse to compromise it. Or try to find some other society to live in; but there's no "opting out" yet claiming to remain part of society. I didn't quit paying taxes when Bush was elected and the Republicans controlled Congress, and they instituted program after program with which I fundamentally disagreed. Are you arguing that I should have?

Posted by liberalrob | February 22, 2008 5:23 PM

I am an American soldier. I think the U.S. should send American soldiers to intervene in Darfur. In fact, I write a letter to the editor saying "The U.S. should send me to Darfur."

Megan then points out that I could have gone to Darfur by myself, passed out bags of rice, and fought against the janjaweed. Since I haven't, clearly I not really interested in going to Darfur, but in having other people go to Darfur.

This is a bogus analogy. It would apply if everything the government did was an all-or-nothing, binary choice, which indeed going to war is. You can't go a little bit to war anymore than you can be a little bit pregnant.

However, most of what government does doesn't fall into this category. When the FDA regulates beef production, for example, they hire X inspectors to conduct spot checks. If you sent them extra money, they could hire X + 1, or at least buy one of their inspectors a new laptop so he could be more efficient and conduct a few more inspections per year. A Federal judge somewhere could have a few more hours of clerk overtime, and get a case or two more out of the way this year. And so on.

I believe McArdle already addressed this point anyway when she agreed the problem of collective action would arise if you were talking about setting up a tax system in the first place, but not when you've already got one in place and if you voluntarily increase the Federal budget by 0.0000125% they'll get 0.0000125% more of what you think is valuable done.

Most counter-arguments seem to rest on the quite unproven assumption that most proposals for tax increases arise from proposals from large entirely-new Federal programs, such as universal health-care, where, indeed, collective action problems arise. But I don't think so. When the Democrats say they want to let the Bush tax cuts expire, it's not to fund any specific new Federal program, but just to pump more money into the general fund for use throughout government.

They are, furthermore, pretty open about the logic they hope people follow to support them: raise the taxes on them ("the rich") so that you can have more bread 'n' circuses. Why not assume they know their constituents well?

Posted by Carl Pham | February 22, 2008 5:23 PM

Megan is playing the freshman in grad school classes right now. Harry made an accurate and interesting point, and Megan *disagreed* with it, by making a couple of bad arguments, and a few correct-but-irrelevant ones.

Harry then responded by explaining that her bad arguments were wrong and her correct-but-irrelevant arguments are irrelevant.

Megan is now saying, "but that doesn't make them wrong! After all, its a pretty uninteresting point!"

Yes, yes it is, Megan. I fear for the children.

Posted by Justin | February 22, 2008 5:25 PM

When the FDA regulates beef production, for example, they hire X inspectors to conduct spot checks. If you sent them extra money, they could hire X + 1, or at least buy one of their inspectors a new laptop so he could be more efficient and conduct a few more inspections per year.

That sounds like a good idea. Which line on my 1040 is for donations to buy FDA beef inspectors new laptops, again?

Posted by bob | February 22, 2008 5:30 PM

"They are willing to kick in their own money if they have to in order to secure the coalition, or because they think this is fair."

Say I would like to pay more taxes for a particular government program. You seem to think the fairness rationale is valid----very well, then, how is it fair to *me* to have to pay for it unilaterally? I might as well say that I would tax other people just to feel that I'm being treated fairly when I give my voluntary contribution. And, of course, I will not voluntarily contribute to something unfair.

The point is not that people think one thing or the other; the point is that this entire exercise is sophistry.

Posted by K | February 22, 2008 5:39 PM

Generally I think you're right on the merits, and I choose to believe that Henry is being willfully obtuse. However, if one's argument in favor of higher taxes were not the inadequate level of services provided but the excessive amount of government debt, unilaterally paying extra would do nothing to solve the problem. Even if all of the extra money went to offsetting the debt, you will still be liable for a full share of the remaining debt when the bill comes due. I wouldn't bother mentioning this, but it seems to be a frequent argument among supporters of excessive taxation, so it probably shouldn't be ignored.

In the end, I think your opponents arguments only have merit when it comes to funding for non-existing programs or for discharging government debt. In every other case, it is absolutely true that small payments by individual taxpayers would be just as effective separately as they are bundled.

Posted by Mario | February 22, 2008 5:48 PM

It's not even about fairness. The fact of the matter is that, without doing excruciating levels of damage to one's own financial well being (except for the wealthiest few people on earth), their individual contribution will not make any significant dent in the change in social structure. It's like the person who sends his kid to walk to school on an empty street first - he's more likely to have his kid killed (and nobody will then want to have their kid walk) than create a better society full of walking kids.

At some point, you need to move to another equilibrium point - the problem, as Henry pointed out in HIS VERY FIRST POST, is the prisoner's dilemna. Each person who donates his $5000 is out $5000, without having moved the equilibrium a bit, because nobody else has donated their $5000. But if you move the equilibrium point, then everybody gladly will donate $5000.

It's true that some substantial portion of the country (but hardly all) would neglect to pay their $5000 if they knew they could get away with it even at the new equilibrium. But that's entirely reasonable under game theory as well (hence why PD's have only one equilibrium), and it simply means that while the sum of everyone's $5000 contribution is worth more than $5000 (in both actual benefit and emotional benefit) to perhaps each and every individual, its still highly unlikely that the last $5000 contributed to the pot increases their personal enjoyment $5000.

But it doesn't mean that the person who wants taxes raised wants only other people's taxes raised. Sure, they'll take it if it was sustainable - but that's an uninteresting point. What they want is to change the equilibrium to something higher, which a proposal to raise everyone else's taxes (but not their own) will not do.

Posted by Justin | February 22, 2008 6:05 PM

I didn't quit paying taxes when Bush was elected and the Republicans controlled Congress, and they instituted program after program with which I fundamentally disagreed. Are you arguing that I should have?

No, what I'm saying is that government has no claim to money, for money's sake. Government has a claim to my money to pay for the services it provides, regardless of my preferences. I'm not disputing that, nor wishing to move to the frontier.

Some people argue it is immoral for me to not want to pay more in taxes, as if tax revenues themselves were an moral end. They aren't. Taxes are a necessary evil that civil society requires.

If I feel the government is doing net negative things with the extra dollars I throw in (distorting the economy, fighting poppy growers in Asia, graduating kids who can't read, and lining the pockets of corn growers), then I don't want to contribute any more to that system then I currently have to. And I resent someone arbitrarily telling me that makes me immoral, uncaring or what have you.

Posted by Skullberg | February 22, 2008 6:08 PM

Justin,

The question is, if you think the "equilibrium point" is too low, and that you ought to pay more in taxes than you actually do, why not voluntarily donate that additional amount to the government anyway?

If you have an answer, it seems to be the claim that the difference between what you actually pay and what you think you ought to pay is too small to make any significant difference to what the government does. By this logic, of course, donating to charities and voting are also unjustified, because they're not going to make a significant difference, either. (It is of course possible that your vote could decide an important election, but the probability is minuscule).

Posted by Mixner | February 22, 2008 6:21 PM

But that is separate from the positive observation I stand by: people are more interested in levying taxes on others than they are in paying taxes themselves.

You know, even if it were true that advocacy of higher taxes for all obliges someone to "give extra money to the government"-- here's the test for you: what does one accomplish in giving extra money to the government, compared to what is accomplished by levying higher taxes on everyone; the answers are "effectively nothing" and "a great deal"-- even if that were true, I wouldn't trust you with this argument.

Because I am quite certain that this is just another of your sadly frequent dressed-up ad hominems. It's like your voucher screeds. They were dominated by your incessant appeals to these phantom voucher opponents who nonetheless send their children to private school. Whether the ranks of people who oppose vouchers are filled with those kind of hypocrites are not (hint: they aren't) it utterly irrelevant to the question at hand. And the same thing is true here. Even if advocacy of paying higher taxes (which generate hundreds of millions of dollars for the government) and giving money away to the government (which generates next to nothing) where the same, and even if those who advocate paying higher taxes were hypocrites, that fact would be utterly irrelevant to the question of whether it is indeed in the best interest of our society to levy higher taxes. It's just ad hominem. It has no rhetorical value whatsoever.

I wish you would argue the way you're capable of arguing, rather than constantly pandering to your
ideology.

Posted by Freddie | February 22, 2008 6:29 PM

You put the issue in terms of paying taxes or buying an iPod. Supposing there are plenty of social goods you could contribute to unilaterally (say, paying for a field trip for a local youth group) or collectively (subsidized federal health care). Subsidized federal health care is a bigger "good," but it won't get off the ground if you're the only one paying for it. Unless your taxes are raised collectively, the bigger "good" is going to be paying for the field trip. Government can only spend your money more wisely than you can when it gets a lot of it from a lot of sources. Hence, the collective action problem.

And again, this is sophistry, because you're trying to atomize the issue of paying taxes---a collective duty---into an issue about individuals. When it comes to tax-paying duty, you can't separate the individual duty from the duty of the whole.

Posted by K | February 22, 2008 6:31 PM

Freddie,

You know, even if it were true that advocacy of higher taxes for all obliges someone to "give extra money to the government"-- here's the test for you: what does one accomplish in giving extra money to the government, compared to what is accomplished by levying higher taxes on everyone; the answers are "effectively nothing" and "a great deal"-- even if that were true, I wouldn't trust you with this argument.

So what? Your one vote also accomplishes "effectively nothing" compared to the votes of the majority. Your individual donation to a charity accomplishes "effectively nothing" compared to the donations of all donors. Do you therefore think the choices to vote and to donate to charity are unjustified?

You can't control how much everyone else contributes to the government, but you can control how much you contribute yourself. If you think you're contributing too little, why not contribute more?

Posted by Mixner | February 22, 2008 6:39 PM

If you think you're contributing too little, why not contribute more?

Every time this argument gets repeated, a public finance professor cries.

Posted by bob | February 22, 2008 6:46 PM

that fact would be utterly irrelevant to the question of whether it is indeed in the best interest of our society to levy higher taxes.

I kind of hate to agree with Freddie because it will ruin my street cred, but he's right. Whether I'm a hypocrite has nothing to do with whether I'm right. Drunks who warn people against addiction, or ex-cons who tell kids to stay in school, are right on the merits even if wrong in their own choices.

I'll also have to chip in for those who argue that sending a check to the government is a pointless waste, but raising taxes isn't, instrumentally speaking (But I agree with Will Allen that if it's truly a moral matter, then you should do it anyway). Most people want better highways, but their entire income is barely enough to fill a couple of potholes, so it's stupid to ask them to deprive themselves of gas money to make some big point.

At best what the failure of "tax me more" funds proves is that most people don't really see higher taxes as a moral matter, although they talk that way.

And I would point out that sending your children to private school does reveal that you think the public schools are so very inferior, you're willing to pay for the same service twice to avoid them. So at the very least you're lying if you claim public education is just fine and dandy and must be preserved as is.

Posted by Rob Lyman | February 22, 2008 6:50 PM

bob,

Every time this argument gets repeated, a public finance professor cries.

It's a question. Do you have an answer?

Posted by Mixner | February 22, 2008 6:54 PM

I'll also have to chip in for those who argue that sending a check to the government is a pointless waste, but raising taxes isn't, instrumentally speaking (But I agree with Will Allen that if it's truly a moral matter, then you should do it anyway). Most people want better highways, but their entire income is barely enough to fill a couple of potholes, so it's stupid to ask them to deprive themselves of gas money to make some big point.

Again, this argument makes no sense unless your position is that all other voluntary acts that individually have a very small effect on outcomes are not worth doing. Voting is an obvious example. Donating a modest sum of money to Oxfam or your church or Planned Parenthood or the National Rifle Association or whatever other charities or non-profits you support is another. Are you in fact saying that you think these acts are essentially a waste of time?

Posted by Mixner | February 22, 2008 7:00 PM

>people are more interested in levying taxes on
>others than they are in paying taxes themselves.

That's probably true. You should do a study.

I'm sure there are also a lot of people like me, who would be willing to pay more *along with everyone else* (allocation is another subject) because we believe (not irrationally) that that collective action would make us all better off.

Posted by Steve Roth | February 22, 2008 7:01 PM

I contributed about $600,000 to charities in 2007. This is the approximate amount of my total tax bill that went to fund entitlement programs and the interest thereon. Put another way, this is money that went from my pocket to the pocket of others because a law or regulation was promulgated in the belief that others were more entitled to the funds than was I. I am not complaining (okay, I'm complaining a little). I'm simply agreeing with your conclusion that those who believe they do not pay enough in taxes should contribute more and they will have my everlasting thanks.

Posted by tww | February 22, 2008 7:10 PM

What most of us are really in favor of is higher taxes on other people. If we wanted higher taxes on ourselves, we'd give the money to charity.

Seldom have so many bad inferences been packed into so few words. First, wanting higher taxes = wanting to pay more + wanting others to pay more. a = b + c. That's what taxes are, that's what people know them as, and that's what people say they want. You can just ask them--no need for "revealed preferences" hokum. You're argument says that since people don't want b by itself (without c), they must not want a. Fallacy of composition. It's like saying, "If you really want a ham sandwich, you'll want to eat a bowl of mayonnaise by itself; conversely, if you won't eat a bowl of mayonnaise, you must not really want a ham sandwich."

Secondly, you seem to be saying that charity is an indicator of a willingness to pay more taxes, but only in the negative, apparently. You might just as well say that those who donate to charity are revealing a preference for higher taxes (no less silly a proposition than yours).

Thirdly, the idea that the "Tax Me More" fund is a good empirical indicator of willingness to pay more is itself unsupported and rather dubious. It assumes that people will see the "fund" as a good-faith effort to increase tax revenue, when arguably it is not that at all. Surely many people see it for the cheap political stunt it is and pass over it. A real empirical study of people's willingness to pay more under various circumstances would be interesting; this is not that, however.

And none of this is really even touching on the collective action problems mentioned by many, which you continue to botch badly. The original post was an absurd argument, but at least had the virtue of being short and somewhat witty. Your attempt to defend it at such length now is just embarrassing. Now enjoy your bowl of mayonnaise (or whatever it is you vegans put on a ham sandwich).

Posted by W.D. | February 22, 2008 7:11 PM

Again, this argument makes no sense unless your position is that all other voluntary acts that individually have a very small effect on outcomes are not worth doing.

That's not my position. My position is that the failure to perform a given act--regardless of the size of the benefits--does not prove anything meaningful about the act itself. It may be a good idea, it may not, but the fact that you personally don't take it doesn't make any difference in that analysis at all.

Furthermore, I would hardly expect anyone to donate to a charity which either 1) had no reasonable prospect of achieving its stated goal, or 2) could not offer a reasonable assurance that the money would be used in the manner intended by the donor. Failure to donate under those circumstances doesn't even say anything meaningful about your own internal beliefs, never mind the wisdom or morality of giving.

If you have reason to believe that my feed-African-children charity will never be able to afford to ship even a single bag of grain to Africa, because nobody has ever heard of me or donated any money, then yes, it's a waste of time to send me $5--because of, as it turns out, the collective action problem. The charities you mention don't have a collective action problem because they're big enough. The government doesn't as to things it currently does, so maybe if your goal is laptops for the FDA, it makes sense to donate. But if what you want is single-payer healthcare, it doesn't.

Furthermore, if you're trying to donate to feed children, but I refuse to give you any assurance that I'll spend it on that, and might instead spend it on the International Cowgirl Hall of Fame, then failing to donate doesn't prove that you don't want to feed children, or that you don't "really" believe in charitable giving.

Posted by Rob Lyman | February 22, 2008 7:36 PM

this argument makes no sense unless your position is that all other voluntary acts that individually have a very small effect on outcomes are not worth doing.

This is a confusion of scale. Taxes, at the federal level especially, don't buy anything until they are aggregated. Many charities, on the other hand, work with much smaller projects and therefore smaller aggregations, or even with individuals directly. An isolated $100 will buy dinner for several homeless people at a charity operation, but it won't even buy the processing time of the clerks who will see it into the public treasury if given as a voluntary tax.

Posted by anony-mouse | February 22, 2008 7:44 PM

It doesn't make sense to regard the government as a charity, doing good works. It's more like a service provider, from whom we purchase things we want. It makes sense to be willing to pay for more services, but be unwilling to pay extra for the same services. Nobody sends Microsoft a check hoping that the next version of Windows will have nifty new features.

Again, to the extent that some people argue for tax increases as a moral matter, they should be donating. But if you simply think that we need to raise taxes to improve roads, it's not reasonable to expect anyone to pay extra if they don't get better roads in return.

Posted by Rob Lyman | February 22, 2008 7:50 PM

Rob Lyman,

My position is that the failure to perform a given act--regardless of the size of the benefits--does not prove anything meaningful about the act itself. It may be a good idea, it may not, but the fact that you personally don't take it doesn't make any difference in that analysis at all.

This is all irrelevant to the point at issue. If someone believes his taxes are too low, why shouldn't he voluntarily pay more to the government, in lieu of those higher taxes? You previously said he shouldn't pay more because his additional contribution would have little effect ("their entire income is barely enough to fill a couple of potholes"). But this is also true of any number of other voluntary acts that individually have little effect, such as voting and donating to charity. So if this is not a valid reason for failing to vote or failing to donate to charity, why is it a valid reason for failing to donate to the government?

Furthermore, I would hardly expect anyone to donate to a charity which either 1) had no reasonable prospect of achieving its stated goal, or 2) could not offer a reasonable assurance that the money would be used in the manner intended by the donor.

Well, if he believes those are valid requirements but doesn't believe the government would satisfy them, then presumably he wouldn't support higher taxes in the first place. We're talking here about people who do support higher taxes, who think the government would use the extra revenue for some purpose they consider beneficial and justified, not people who think the government would just waste the extra money.

Posted by Mixner | February 22, 2008 8:07 PM

Taxes, at the federal level especially, don't buy anything until they are aggregated. Many charities, on the other hand, work with much smaller projects and therefore smaller aggregations, or even with individuals directly.

First, both government and charity involve projects and programs of all sizes, from direct cash handouts to individuals to hugely expensive scientific research programs. And second, individual voluntary donations to the government can obviously be "aggregated" with one another, just as they are in charities, and with tax revenues. Indeed, if they are just treated as additional tax revenues for accounting purposes they would be indistinguishable from a tax increase.

Posted by Mixner | February 22, 2008 8:26 PM

I guess you call a town that votes for a raise in property taxes to save a school crazy. Or would it seem more reasonable for the town to wait until people randomly donate money to save it.
It's a completely bogus question.
Whatever happened to basic civics?
Or would we better we no taxes, no government, etc?
Ha.

Posted by Jay Wasserman | February 22, 2008 8:56 PM

How about another analogy: I believe that my country is under attack so I think we need additional soldiers. One approach is to suggest that we need a draft (ignoring for a moment that most who suggest a draft do so in order to make it more difficult for the US to defend itself or attack others). Another approach is for me to join the US military and often take a lower salary than if I had remained a civilian.

Those who suggest that we should raise taxes on everyone are also probably more likely to support a draft (I won't serve unless others are compelled to), at least based on surveys of the political preferences of those who are have joined the military. Those who volunteer out of a sense of duty are also less likely to belong to the political party more opposed to taxes.

SO some people are willing to put their lives on the line to protect their country without others being forced to. Shouldn't those who think the government needs more money be as willing to provide their excess cash as the citizens who are willing to risk their non-excess lives?

Posted by m3 | February 22, 2008 8:57 PM

Most of the advocates of single payer health care are NOT trying to solve any collective action problem. They generally claim that the program can be funded by taxes on "the wealthy" whatever that means, and they are trying to sell it to voters who do not consider themselves to be among the wealthy.

-dk

Posted by Dick King | February 22, 2008 8:58 PM

Did Warren Buffet ever say by how much he thinks his taxes are too low? If it's more than a fraction of 1%, he could fund any one or two of a great number of worthwhile projects with charitable donations.

Posted by markm | February 22, 2008 9:07 PM

I guess you call a town that votes for a raise in property taxes to save a school crazy. Or would it seem more reasonable for the town to wait until people randomly donate money to save it.

I wouldn't call it crazy at all. I'm sure Megan wouldn't, either. Neither of us is challenging the need for taxes. The question she asks is "Should you, if you think that your taxes are too low, voluntarily give that money to the government?" She and I both think the answer is "Yes."

Applying this to your school scenario, "saving" a school that is facing closure for lack of money obviously isn't the only way in which voluntary donations to the government could be beneficial to schools. More often, they could simply be used to fund additional resources for the school. In fact, this kind of voluntary supplementary funding appears to be quite common in American public education. Teachers and parents sometimes pay out of their own pockets for supplies they think the school needs. PTAs and student groups organize fund-raising events to raise money for school supplies and facilities. If you think your taxes for public schools are too low, you are perfectly free to pay extra money for public schools in this way. The same principle could be applied to any other area of government spending. The government could even collect this additional revenue from people who think their taxes are too low through the IRS or some other existing collection mechanism.

Posted by Mixner | February 22, 2008 9:34 PM

Like so many libertarian arguments, Megan's claim here is a too-clever-by-half analysis that ultimately has nothing to do with the real world. In point of fact, millions of people deliberately make choices that will tend to raise their taxes--by moving from Alabama to New York, by moving from the city to the suburbs, by voting for liberal Democrats. Obviously I would like it if by some fluke I didn't have to pay taxes at all, just as I would like it if someone would give me a free car. But I am perfectly willing to pay taxes--even higher ones--just as I am willing to pay for a car, provided what I get in exchange is worth the cost.

Posted by Karl Weber | February 22, 2008 10:43 PM

Megan is right. The fact that we have a (grossly) progressive tax system and pride ourselves on the increasing percentage of people who "pay no income tax at all!" (as though thats a good thing) indicate irrefutably that people in this society want things delivered by the government that they did not pay a fair value for. I know its been a long time we've believed "the rich" somehow owe more - but in what universe does their success create an obligation to subsidize your receipt of government benefits? This was never "fair", merely popular.

Posted by wazowsky | February 22, 2008 11:07 PM

Yes, this really is one of those coy slanders dressed up as an 'argument'.

But the fact of the matter is, I know my own mind, I know why I pay taxes, why I vote for tax increases (sometimes), why I volunteer time at the Humane Society, why I donate money to specific causes. It has nothing to do with 'wishing other people were taxed instead of me.'

So in reality, what we've got here is a nasty little go-around where the people making this accusation are demanding that others prove it isn't so. And guess what - big surprise - they profess to be 'not convinced'.

Of course, in reality, the burden is upon them to argue their case, not on others to prove them wrong. Not that they can do it, obviously, otherwise they would have.

Posted by ScentOfViolets | February 22, 2008 11:09 PM

As for MM's positive assertion, I think the reason people keep bringing up collective action is that it seems difficult to deduce that people are more interested in levying taxes on others rather than themselves simply because they tend not to just donate their own money. If they want a program, and it will take everyone paying in to fund the program, then they may be willing to pay, but wish first to be assured that everyone pays. There doesn't seem to be a dichotomy there, between wanting everyone else to pay and wanting yourself to pay.

On her normative claim, there seems to be a way for MM's argument to work, but at that point it seems to become pretty underwhelming. I mean OK, so there are some people who think that taxes should be higher as a moral matter, and not only that, but they also think their own taxes are too low, and that that is a moral matter, and they think the government has a better use for their money that they themselves do, so they ought to donate that excess money they have (that would otherwise be taxed) to the government. OK, great, so long as there are people like this (I'm not denying that there are, it would just be nice to clearly signal how weak the arguments being dealt with are as opposed to other argument for higher taxes) and we accept the normativity of the hypothetical syllogism or believe that people have an obligation to be consistent or something, fine.

But don't most people who think taxes should be higher think that BECAUSE there are certain services or safety nets that can't be achieved at all unless everyone pays in?

In other words, don't most people think that a single instance of lower taxes here or there is much less of a problem than a pervasive injustice in taxes? We can argue about whether they're right or not, and I tend to think that moral arguments about taxes tend to go nowhere, but we're just granting people's underlying moral commitments and then testing their consistency. If the real problem is that the large scale structure needs changing to be less regressive on the whole or something like that, then my sending in my own excess money won't change the structural injustice.

This seems to be where collective action meets the moral argument. So it seems to me that a moral argument for higher taxes does not necessarily mean that the one making such an argument ought to send their own money in voluntarily in order to be consistent. Rather, it has to be a particular type of moral argument, one that says not only that the tax system is structurally unjust, (because certain imperative services can't be provided without a large scale change in the tax code) but that MY taxes specifically need to be higher. In that case, OK, great, but that seems underwhelming.

First, as has been noted, it seems that when people say that their taxes are too low, they are colloquially expressing that it would be better on the whole if their tax bracket where subject to a higher rate. But to whatever extent people literally mean that their individual taxes are too low, and this is an injustice, then sure, they should send more money in I guess, but is THAT all this argument has been about?

Posted by Jay J | February 22, 2008 11:18 PM

Scent,

But the fact of the matter is, I know my own mind, I know why I pay taxes, why I vote for tax increases (sometimes), why I volunteer time at the Humane Society, why I donate money to specific causes. It has nothing to do with 'wishing other people were taxed instead of me.'

If you think your taxes are too low, why don't you make up the difference, in voluntary contributions, between what you actually pay and what you think you ought to pay?

Posted by Mixner | February 22, 2008 11:37 PM

Jay,

I think the reason people keep bringing up collective action is that it seems difficult to deduce that people are more interested in levying taxes on others rather than themselves simply because they tend not to just donate their own money. If they want a program, and it will take everyone paying in to fund the program, then they may be willing to pay, but wish first to be assured that everyone pays.

But it won't take "everyone paying in to fund the program." That's just empirically false. Most tax increases simply raise funding for existing programs. They don't create new programs that cannot exist unless "everyone pays in." Higher taxes generally just provide more money for things the government is already doing. If you think you ought to be paying more to the government for social welfare, or scientific research, or the military, or whatever else it may be, why don't you just pay it? I realize you think everyone else should pay more too, but that's irrelevant. You can't control what other people pay. You can control what you pay.

Posted by Mixner | February 22, 2008 11:50 PM

Mixner,

Whether or not taxes pay for existing programs or new ones is not important. The important thing is the collective action problem. And "everyone paying in" refers to collective action. If you can point to a percentage of the populace that doesn't pay taxes since they don't make enough to pay taxes, that essentially doesn't change anything. "Everyone" means that it is a large scale project, as opposed to my as an individual just paying in voluntarily.

If MM was referring to people who don't pay taxes, but wish for others to pay taxes, fine. But simply because people don't donate money over and above what they're taxed doesn't necessarily mean that they interested in others paying taxes as opposed to themselves. That's not a necessary inference. And what I've said above deals with the positive argument.

Now, as for the normative argument, I suppose if I thought that I should be paying more in taxes (aside from concerns about collective action) then I would send more money in.

But as I said in my post, it seems that when most people say they pay too little in taxes, it's a colloquial way of saying that they wish their tax bracket were taxed more, not necessarily that they, individually, are paying an immorally low amount of taxes.

But again, from my post, to the extent that people believe (aside from concerns about collective action) that they, individually, are paying too little in taxes, then yes, they would have to send more money in to the government in order to be consistent.

Posted by Jay J | February 23, 2008 12:08 AM

If the real problem is that the large scale structure needs changing to be less regressive on the whole or something like that, then my sending in my own excess money won't change the structural injustice.

If you think your taxes should be raised only as part of a revenue-neutral tax reform, so that the total tax burden remains the same and only the distribution of that burden changes, then that might be a legitimate reason not to voluntarily pay the extra amount you think you otherwise ought to be paying. Your voluntary payment wouldn't be revenue-neutral and it wouldn't reduce anyone else's taxes. But most people who think their taxes are too low do not seem to want to keep the total tax burden constant. They want to raise it, so that the government has more money to spend.

Posted by Mixner | February 23, 2008 12:09 AM

Mixner,

In response to your !2:09 AM post,

Good response, it give me the chance to sharpen up the meaning of "injustice."

Injustice can refer to the relative tax burden, or it can refer to a tax system that inadequately funds projects or services that some see as moral imperatives.

Even if it refers to inadequate funding, one person's money probably won't make a difference.

And now we're back to square one, which is that in order for MM's moral argument to work, we have to be talking about people who

1) Think that the government needs more money to spend on needed projects (or perhaps think rich people don't pay their fair share).

and

2) Think that their own personal taxes are too low (as opposed to just thinking that their tax bracket should be taxed more).

If you have #1 without #2, then the argument doesn't apply. If you have #1 and #2, well great, you win but so what? That still doesn't mean wanting higher taxes means that you should send more of your own money in.

Posted by Jay J | February 23, 2008 12:22 AM

Mixner,

Obviously I meant, "In response to your 12:09 AM post."

I'm used to posting where I can edit, so I don't preview anything...

Posted by Jay J | February 23, 2008 12:24 AM

Whether or not taxes pay for existing programs or new ones is not important.

The argument you proposed against paying more voluntarily was that it would take "everyone paying in to fund the program." That's obviously not true for existing programs. Your additional payment would provide additional funding for that program, whether anyone else paid in or not. And even for "new" programs, it is virtually inconceivable that the program could not exist unless "everyone was paying in." So I think this is yet another bogus argument.

The important thing is the collective action problem. And "everyone paying in" refers to collective action.

You and others keep alluding to this alleged problem without clearly explaining what it is. What is "the collective action problem" supposed to be, exactly? Are you talking about the problem of free riders? Or what?

But again, from my post, to the extent that people believe (aside from concerns about collective action) that they, individually, are paying too little in taxes, then yes, they would have to send more money in to the government in order to be consistent.

Good, then we agree. Again, please explain clearly what "concerns about collective action" is supposed to mean.

Posted by Mixner | February 23, 2008 12:33 AM

Injustice can refer to the relative tax burden, or it can refer to a tax system that inadequately funds projects or services that some see as moral imperatives. Even if it refers to inadequate funding, one person's money probably won't make a difference.

I've been over this. If "one person's money" donated to the government probably won't make a difference, then it probably won't make a difference if donated to a charity. Do you therefore think it is foolish to donate to charity? "One person's vote" probably won't make a difference to the outcome of the election. Do you therefore think it is foolish to vote? Sorry, this is another bogus argument.

And now we're back to square one, which is that in order for MM's moral argument to work, we have to be talking about people who1) Think that the government needs more money to spend on needed projects (or perhaps think rich people don't pay their fair share). and 2) Think that their own personal taxes are too low (as opposed to just thinking that their tax bracket should be taxed more).

Yes, and there appear to be many such people--people who want to increase government spending and who think their own taxes are too low.

By the way, why would someone think "their tax bracket should be taxed more" but not that their own taxes are too low? Unless you're talking about people who think they have been unfairly put in the wrong tax bracket, or people who think they should have a personal exemption from the tax rate everyone else in their bracket is required to pay, it's hard to know who this could mean.

Posted by Mixner | February 23, 2008 12:46 AM

This whole "collective action" issue is a massive red herring. The classic collective action problem is environmental spoliation, yet millions of committed environmentalists nevertheless shell out large wads of their own hard-earned cash for hybrid cars and other expensive eco-friendly products.

The key word here, of course, is "millions". The whole "I'm just one lonely do-gooder" argument against putting one's own money where one's mouth is, loses its force when millions are willing to act together. We can therefore just rephrase Megan's question as, "if so many people think that taxes should be higher, then why don't they all band together and donate money to the government en masse?" After all, environmentalists, NPR listeners, and many other groups of altruists have shown themselves willing to bite the bullet and endure large numbers of free riders for the sake of the higher good--why not tax-raisers?

When the question is phrased that way, the answer is obvious: if you're going to band together with the like-minded to achieve some result--whether helping the poor, treating the sick, or saving the earth--there's always a more effective and efficient vehicle for your dollars than the government. The only advantage of working through the government is that it can pull in dollars from people who never would have contributed a dime to your cause.

That doesn't necessarily make it wrong to want to require everyone's contribution to a goal. Even most libertarians agree, for instance, that taxing everyone to fund a national defense force. But yes, if you want to raise taxes to achieve a goal rather than act together with your like-minded fellow citizens to achieve it, then your motive is almost certainly the desire to ensure that the non-like-minded contribute as well.

Posted by Dan Simon | February 23, 2008 12:53 AM

Mixner,

People can think that social security is inadequate right? Well that's an existing program. People can also think that we need universal health care, and that would be a new program. In either case, this is a completely plain way of interpreting what many people mean by injustice, in the case of inadequate existing current programs, or possible new programs. Or of course they can think the tax burden is uneven in that they wish it were more progressive or regressive.

The important thing is that the program needs to be large scale in order to be funded adequately. If we took universal health care, for example, this would be true whether you agreed with the program goal's or not. I tweaked "everyone paying in" to "large scale" because I didn't want a minute technicality to get in the way. There may be some who make so little that they don't pay taxes.

What's important in the hypothetical is that whether the program is old or new, there needs to be large scale involvement, in the way of lots of people paying taxes, in order for the program to be funded adequately, given the goals of the hypothetical program. One person paying in won't fund the program.

If a program were going to be eliminated, then the moral justification for the higher tax would go with, at least that's how many people view. To the extent that there are people who think they should pay more, like in a vacuum, then Megan's argument applies. But her argument wasn't stated with those caveats or qualifications from the beginning, and many of her defenders in the comments section have presented even more blunt arguments for a position that seems to need to apply to a pretty specific subset of people who desire higher taxes.

So no, we don't really agree, because the argument I posted was careful and specific about which subset of people MM's argument applies, to where I think her argument was overly broad, and I especially think the arguments of many in the comments sections were too broad.

If the subset of people who wish for higher taxes and see this as a moral imperative are properly specified, then OK. But just because someone wished that taxes in general were higher, and that the government should have enough money to spend on key projects (old or new), and that this is a moral imperative, that doesn't necessarily mean that they're under any rational obligation to send more money in over and above what they're taxed. It has to be added that they think that aside from these factors, they think that they personally should be paying more taxes (aside from just wishing their tax bracket were taxed more). At times, it seemed like the argument was specific enough, at other times, it was applied so broadly as to be unwarranted.

Nah, I don't think I'll get into collective action and the like. I'm not to interested in arguing with someone who flippantly refers to something as a "bogus argument" without really understanding what the argument is.

Posted by Jay J | February 23, 2008 12:55 AM

Really, speaking as one of those people you're attempting to malign, it's not my motive. And I'll thank you not to question my motives any more. Unless you want me to question yours, or for that matter, your character.

Posted by ScentOfViolets | February 23, 2008 12:56 AM

Mixner,

If a charity works with the government, then the same argument apples. However if a charity has projects more close to the local ground level, then an individual's donation may have much more impact. My own tiny tax contribution over and above what I'm already taxed would go to...what? Some amorphous "tax me more" fund? At least with a charity I know what particular purpose is being pursued. But as you said before, government and charities have all sort of projects of varying sizes. To the extent that a charity has the dizzying responsibilities of a government, and half-heartedly makes known that it has a "give me more" fund, then I suppose we have the same problem.

As for tax brackets and the like, there could be a distinction in wishing your tax bracket were taxed more and thinking that you personally don't pay more in taxes. If the taxes of those who make as much as you aren't raised, then you might not think you personally are paying too little, since your payment alone would necessarily adequately fund anything. If however, the taxes of those in your range were raised, then perhaps your favorite programs would have adequate funding.

Incidentally, I think Dan Simon's question "if so many people think that taxes should be higher, then why don't they all band together and donate money to the government en masse" is excellent. I do think, however, that it is not a rephrasing of Megan's point. It's a DIFFERENT QUESTION. Megan's question, at least at times, (and certainly some of the comments), seemed to imply that even in a vacuum, if one thought that taxes should be higher as a moral matter, then one ought to just shell out more money to the government, as an individual.

It actually matters how an argument is phrased. If it's phrased vaguely, then it can mean something completely different from what it was intended to mean. Hopefully over the course of several posts and threads an argument can gain more clarity and specificity. However this was the third such entry on this topic, and it didn't seem to make the argument pointed enough to apply, there was too much buckshot flying around, in other words.

But this is getting laborious...

Posted by Jay J | February 23, 2008 1:23 AM

Megan is getting herself into an insanely contorted position in order to defend a silly initial argument. If I'm in a group of 5 people, and I say, "Let's go to IHOP," it follows from Megan's position that I am not actually concerned primarily with eating pancakes, but with OTHER people eating pancakes. When the group instead decides to go for Thai food, and I go along, it follows that my revealed preference was not for eating pancakes, but for eating Thai food. What I really wanted initially was for everyone else to eat pancakes, and clearly my ideal outcome here would have been for everyone else to go eat pancakes while I go for Thai food.

It seems markedly less insane to describe what is happening here as a collective process of deciding where to go eat together. Similarly, it is less insane to describe the national debate over tax levels as a collective process of deciding how high taxes should be and what services government should buy with them, rather than a process of 100 million taxpayers deciding whether or not they have too much or too little money.

Posted by brooksfoeb | February 23, 2008 1:26 AM

Laborious and late...

This is my 1:23 post, edited a bit.

Mixner,

If a charity works with like government, then the same argument applies. However if a charity has projects more close to the local ground level, then an individual's donation may have much more impact. My own tiny tax contribution over and above what I'm already taxed would go to...what? Some amorphous "tax me more" fund? At least with a charity I know what particular purpose is being pursued. But as you said before, government and charities have all sort of projects of varying sizes. To the extent that a charity has the dizzying responsibilities of a government, and half-heartedly makes known that it has a "give me more" fund, then I suppose we have the same problem.

As for tax brackets and the like, there could be a distinction in wishing your tax bracket were taxed more and thinking that you personally don't pay too litle in taxes. If the taxes of those who make as much as you aren't raised, then you might not think you personally are paying too little, since your payment alone wouldn't necessarily adequately fund anything. If however, the taxes of those in your range were raised, then perhaps your favorite programs would have adequate funding.

Incidentally, I think Dan Simon's question

"if so many people think that taxes should be higher, then why don't they all band together and donate money to the government en masse"

is excellent.

I do think, however, that it is not a rephrasing of Megan's point. It's a DIFFERENT QUESTION. Megan's question, at least at times, (and certainly some of the comments), seemed to imply that even in a vacuum, if one thought that taxes should be higher as a moral matter, then one ought to just shell out more money to the government, as an individual, even in the absence of other factors.

It actually matters how an argument is phrased. If it's phrased vaguely, then it can mean something completely different from what it was intended to mean. Hopefully over the course of several posts and threads an argument can gain more clarity and specificity. However this was the third such entry on this topic in the last couple of days, and it didn't seem to make the argument pointed enough to apply, there was too much buckshot flying around, in other words.

But this is getting laborious...

Posted by Jay J | Fe