9 ms·

Maybe take a look at Buffett's charitable record sometime.

andrewflnr 15y ago
Good, he practices what he preaches. The point remains, paying higher taxes is not an efficient way to help your fellow man. You'll get much better bang for your buck donating to a worthy charity. Thought of this way, it's a simple question of utility.
- dwolfson20 15y ago
  This is an extremely abstract argument. It's a matter of degree. If everyone gave all their money to charity, we'd have no government at all.
  - andrewflnr 15y ago
    You're taking my abstract argument farther than I intended; perhaps I should have been more careful. I'm not saying we should give all our money to charity, just that it should be strongly preferred to paying increased taxes, especially with the goal of helping people.
    - Andrew_Quentin 15y ago
      I think the rich can do both. They can pay taxes and give to charity like most ordinary people do. What is so special about them?
  - rooshdi 15y ago
    Exactly, as much as some individuals would like to focus solely on the ills of government, there are socially beneficial programs supported by the government which need continual funding: http://know.about.com/Government_Programs http://know.about.com/Government_Programs
- wpietri 15y ago
  > The point remains, paying higher taxes is not an efficient way to help your fellow man. Maybe true, maybe not, but totally irrelevant. Taxes solve the free rider problem. Individual charity can't.
  - JVirissimo 15y ago
    True, but what solves the forced rider problem and why presume that it is more benign a problem than free riding? One man's public good is another man's public bad.
    - wpietri 15y ago
      There's no a priori answer: democracy is how we decide. But one way to check how we're doing is by comparison with other countries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenu... The US's tax burden is already the lowest of the OECD countries bar Chile and Mexico. It's 30% lower than Great Britain, and half that of Denmark. And what that hides is we spend an extraordinarily large portion of that on "defense", so in terms of money spent on citizens, we're necessarily lower. But if that's still too much governmental interference, then tax haters are able to select from a wide variety of third-world countries. I might suggest Somalia, where effective tax burden is zero. There being no effective government at all, of course.
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
      - JVirissimo 15y ago
        "There's no a priori answer: democracy is how we decide." Yes, but simply because the majority votes to take a certain action does not make that action utility-maximizing (the losers might lose more than the gainers gain). Of course, even if it is utility-maximizing (which is probably unmeasurable anyway), many would still object even if they were among the winners because it violates some rule of justice, is unfair, or other similar thing. I'm not so much sticking up for the people getting less utility from "public goods" than they would from a private good that is a close substitute, but for the people that get disutility from "public goods" even if they cost them nothing. I'm sure I'm not the only bleeding-heart civil libertarian that would pay good money in order not to receive such "public goods" as killing foreigners for living in a country whose government we disagree with, locking up peaceful individuals for ingesting illegal substances, or subsidizing behavior we find abhorrent. "But if that's still too much governmental interference, then tax haters are able to select from a wide variety of third-world countries. I might suggest Somalia, where effective tax burden is zero. There being no effective government at all, of course." This counter-argument proves too much. Couldn't someone denying your preferred tax policy suggest that you (or Buffet) move to a country with higher tax rates rather than they having to move to a lower tax country? I find the "if you don't like it, then leave" argument less than persuasive.
yummyfajitas 15y ago
Why does Buffet donate to charity rather than the treasury? Does he believe that the government will use his money less efficiently than the organizations he donates to?
- prawn 15y ago
  Opportunity to choose his causes?
- zacharycohn 15y ago
  Because even if Buffet donated every penny he had (approx 50 billion), it would barely make a dent in the US debt (approx 14.5 trillion).
- chc 15y ago
  There are any number of possible answers to that question that don't fall into the false dichotomy you've set up. Why are you not a plumber? Is it because you believe that plumbing is worthless?

Good, he practices what he preaches. The point remains, paying higher taxes is not an efficient way to help your fellow man. You'll get much better bang for your buck donating to a worthy charity. Thought of this way, it's a simple question of utility.

dwolfson20 15y ago
This is an extremely abstract argument. It's a matter of degree. If everyone gave all their money to charity, we'd have no government at all.
- andrewflnr 15y ago
  You're taking my abstract argument farther than I intended; perhaps I should have been more careful. I'm not saying we should give all our money to charity, just that it should be strongly preferred to paying increased taxes, especially with the goal of helping people.
  - Andrew_Quentin 15y ago
    I think the rich can do both. They can pay taxes and give to charity like most ordinary people do. What is so special about them?
- rooshdi 15y ago
  Exactly, as much as some individuals would like to focus solely on the ills of government, there are socially beneficial programs supported by the government which need continual funding: http://know.about.com/Government_Programs http://know.about.com/Government_Programs
wpietri 15y ago
> The point remains, paying higher taxes is not an efficient way to help your fellow man. Maybe true, maybe not, but totally irrelevant. Taxes solve the free rider problem. Individual charity can't.
- JVirissimo 15y ago
  True, but what solves the forced rider problem and why presume that it is more benign a problem than free riding? One man's public good is another man's public bad.
  - wpietri 15y ago
    There's no a priori answer: democracy is how we decide. But one way to check how we're doing is by comparison with other countries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenu... The US's tax burden is already the lowest of the OECD countries bar Chile and Mexico. It's 30% lower than Great Britain, and half that of Denmark. And what that hides is we spend an extraordinarily large portion of that on "defense", so in terms of money spent on citizens, we're necessarily lower. But if that's still too much governmental interference, then tax haters are able to select from a wide variety of third-world countries. I might suggest Somalia, where effective tax burden is zero. There being no effective government at all, of course.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - JVirissimo 15y ago
      "There's no a priori answer: democracy is how we decide." Yes, but simply because the majority votes to take a certain action does not make that action utility-maximizing (the losers might lose more than the gainers gain). Of course, even if it is utility-maximizing (which is probably unmeasurable anyway), many would still object even if they were among the winners because it violates some rule of justice, is unfair, or other similar thing. I'm not so much sticking up for the people getting less utility from "public goods" than they would from a private good that is a close substitute, but for the people that get disutility from "public goods" even if they cost them nothing. I'm sure I'm not the only bleeding-heart civil libertarian that would pay good money in order not to receive such "public goods" as killing foreigners for living in a country whose government we disagree with, locking up peaceful individuals for ingesting illegal substances, or subsidizing behavior we find abhorrent. "But if that's still too much governmental interference, then tax haters are able to select from a wide variety of third-world countries. I might suggest Somalia, where effective tax burden is zero. There being no effective government at all, of course." This counter-argument proves too much. Couldn't someone denying your preferred tax policy suggest that you (or Buffet) move to a country with higher tax rates rather than they having to move to a lower tax country? I find the "if you don't like it, then leave" argument less than persuasive.

yummyfajitas 15y ago

Why does Buffet donate to charity rather than the treasury? Does he believe that the government will use his money less efficiently than the organizations he donates to?

prawn 15y ago
Opportunity to choose his causes?
zacharycohn 15y ago
Because even if Buffet donated every penny he had (approx 50 billion), it would barely make a dent in the US debt (approx 14.5 trillion).
chc 15y ago
There are any number of possible answers to that question that don't fall into the false dichotomy you've set up. Why are you not a plumber? Is it because you believe that plumbing is worthless?