Hacker News Reader

Comment by skh | Hacker News Reader

I think my wife and I should pay more in taxes. I also feel that I shouldn't die on my sword and voluntarily pay more in taxes whilst others in my income bracket don't. There is nothing contradictory in this. But suppose you think it is hypocritical of me to think tax rates should be higher for people like me while not voluntarily paying more in taxes. At most you can conclude that I'm a hypocrite.

My hypocrisy does not detract from the veracity of the belief that taxes should be higher for people like me. That belief is correct/true/valid or wrong independent of my hypocrisy.

View on HN

The only reason you don't pay more in taxes is because you don't like the feels of not keeping up with the Joneses?

Okay, but I don't regard you as an sort of moral actor for that: you intentionally don't do something you readily admit would make the situation better, out of your emotional needs, while politicking to force everyone to do the thing you're not actually willing to do yourself.

So no, I simply don't believe you: I don't think you believe you should pay higher taxes, I think you believe other people in your income bracket should, to run society the way you envision. If somehow that didn't apply to you, but applied to every one, well that would be just fine wouldn't it?

I originally didn't agree with GP, but the posts like yours trying to refute it are actually bringing me around to that position -- because they're deeply morally compromised, full of special pleading, and so on.

You've made a mistake. You wrote:

..you're not actually willing to do yourself."

That should be:

...you're not actually willing to do solely by yourself.

As I said, what does it matter if I'm a hypocrite? My belief that taxes should be higher for people like me is true or false independent of my hypocrisy. The question of taxation levels should not be determined or influenced by the level of my own personal hypocrisy.

I don't think you believe you should pay higher taxes, I think you believe other people in your income bracket should,..

You inserted other. This is wrong. I believe all people in my income bracket should pay more in taxes. This includes me. I do believe that government should tax me more. I'm also not going to donate more to the government if it isn't forced. Free rider problem and all that.

There's no special pleading in my position and I don't claim that my position on taxation levels is some sort of moral action on my part. All I've said is the following 2 things:

1. Taxes should higher for people in my income bracket.

2. I'm not going donate more to the government than what is required.

Make of this what you will. I'm a hypocrite. But I still think taxes should be higher for people in my income bracket and this obviously includes myself.

The only reason you don't pay more in taxes is because you don't like the feels of not keeping up with the Joneses?

That's not what they said, at all. You appear to think everyone is maximally selfish and short-sighted:

you believe others should pay...if that somehow didn't apply to you...that'd be just fine

That is not the case. Not everyone thinks like this.

Perhaps willing your estate to the state would be a way to resolve this hypocrisy? While you are alive you don't put yourself at a disadvantage and can act as an investment manager for your future donation to the government. Once you die, you will no longer have anything to lose by donating everything you have left to the government. Obviously if you have heirs it becomes a bit more complicated.

Having thought about this a bit more, the idea of "not being taxed enough" is not necessarily about raising revenue for the government. They don't need to take your money to tax you, they can just print money and tax everyone with inflation. The point of taxing the "rich" more is to level the playing field. It is prevent power from concentrating in people who are not democratically accountable. So in that case, donating your estate will not achieve that goal.

I don’t think my position is hypocritical and even if it is I’m not looking for a way to resolve it. I believe taxes should be higher for people in my income bracket. I also will not be donating to the government. I have not problem with this state of affairs. Others seem to have a problem with it though.

Whether or not taxes should be raised is independent of whatever level of hypocrisy I possess.

That's bad reasoning. Every dollar you give helps people. What other people do doesn't affect that. So, yes, hypocrisy. You just don't want to pay more.

OK. I'm a hypocrite. I do vote for higher taxes on myself and others. So I guess the last sentence you wrote isn't entirely correct.

You do realize that people do seemingly contradictory things, right? And sometimes have overtly contradictory beliefs relative to their actions. As Saint Paul referenced; the thorn in his side.

My beliefs versus my actions in this instance is an aspect of the free rider problem. Look it up.

I'm aware of the free rider problem. I'm willing to bet, by the way, that the author of the article does pay a lot more in taxes than he thinks. People often speak as if effective tax rate were the net amount. That's something to think about in the context of free riders.

If you are aware of the free rider problem then you oughtn't be unaware that people can believe that something should be done but won't do it if they aren't forced to.

Why give it through a middle man (government) if you can donate it directly to the hungry mouths? It’s not like there’s a 2:1 match on your taxes. At best it flows through 1:1 and that’s at best.

I choose to live in a society and I want to live in a society that maintains a certain level of humanity. To run this enterprise that we call society requires a government (I do not at all agree with anarchism). That government requires money to run. Hence the need for taxes and right now taxes in the U.S. are low relative to the last 50 years.

I don't know anyone who is hungry so I can't directly give food to the hungry. One can seek out an organization to provides food for the hungry. I believe that the organization best suited to do this government. Besides, there is more to the proper running of a society than just feeding hungry people.

We need roads, sewers, clean water, a legal system, police, teachers, etc. The umbrella organization that we give money to in order to provide these things is the government.

> One can seek out an organization to provides food for the hungry. I believe that the organization best suited to do this government.

Empirically speaking, government is one of the least suited and efficient organizations to do this [1].

“[Government] income redistribution agencies are estimated to absorb about two-thirds of each dollar budgeted to them in overhead costs, and in some cases as much as three-quarters of each dollar. Using government data, Robert L. Woodson (1989, p. 63) calculated that, on average, 70 cents of each dollar budgeted for government assistance goes not to the poor, but to the members of the welfare bureaucracy and others serving the poor. Michael Tanner (1996, p. 136 n. 18) cites regional studies supporting this 70/30 split.

“In contrast, administrative and other operating costs in private charities absorb, on average, only one-third or less of each dollar donated, leaving the other two-thirds (or more) to be delivered to recipients. Charity Navigator, www.charitynavigator.org the newest of several private sector organizations that rate charities by various criteria and supply that information to the public on their web sites, found that, as of 2004, 70 percent of charities they rated spent at least 75 percent of their budgets on the programs and services they exist to provide, and 90 percent spent at least 65 percent. The median administrative expense among all charities in their sample was only 10.3 percent.”

[1] http://mises.org/journals/jls/21_2/21_2_1.pdf

Widespread undernourishment and hunger was not defeated by charity. It was defeated by government. Widespread access to clean water was not accomplished by charity. It was accomplished by government. Widespread access to education was not accomplished by charity. It was accomplished by government. Widespread access to medical care for poor children was not accomplished by charity. It was accomplished by government.

Thus it is safe to say that government is much more efficient at accomplishing these goals than charity. Charity is much more efficient at the margins. It’s great for the fringe cases once the majority of the problem has been addressed.

I think it's possible for an additional tax dollar to help people, for sure. But it seems unreasonable to assume that a positive tax revenue delta will manifest in useful or well-managed social programs. Additional money in the public coffers is a necessary precondition for expanded social programs of value, but there are still problems of management, possibilities that the money will be spent on unjustified wars, etc.

Every dollar you pay can potentially help people. I don't disagree. BUT: you're blatantly ignoring the massive amounts of money that are being wasted by government (and I'm not talking about good universal healthcare and decent pensions here)

It's all great in theory, but every single developed country wastes billions in taxpayers money every year on all sorts of irrelevant things. Politician pet projects. Projects going massively wrong and overrunning in cost at inflated prices. Inefficiencies. Etc..

I'd rather donate a healthy amount of money to a nonprofit of my choice (and yes, take the tax deduction for doing that -- can donate almost twice as much!). Those charities generally will be able to allocate said resources much more efficiently.

What a ridiculous argument. "You say you support US fighting in Syria, but you haven't personally intervened by purchasing a gun and plane ticket!"

"I want to pay more taxes" is obviously a stand-in for "tax rates should be higher", not because we love taxes, but because they help us achieve national priorities. Individual action doesn't do that, which is precisely why they're national priorities.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com