Suppose that 1.) I think that more money should be spent on schools and that 2.) I think that my taxes should be raised so that more money can be spent on schools.

Why don’t I just donate the money? Because 3.) I also think that school funding is a public obligation and should be paid for by taxes and 4.) people who don’t want to pay taxes should not be allowed to shift the burden of schools to private donors.

I disagreed when Dsquared made this argument elsewhere, because sometimes in bad political circumstances you end up giving in and dealing with the local situation. But Dsquared was right on the main principle, and a common though not universal effect of voluntarism is to favor kids in well-off neighborhoods even more than they already were favored. (The US school system’s local control organization is designed to maintain inequality.)

My use of rational arguments indicated no weakening of my conviction that McMegan is a malicious twit and not worth bothering with. What’s with the Economist, anyway?

My point, which is really Friedman’s point, is that it isn’t wise as a general principle to set up an incentive structure where people can regularly vote themselves benefits without the expectation that they will be largely contributing to paying for them.

Which is, of course, why the wealthiest 2% suffer under a marginal rate of 95% for every dollar made over $5 million. Oh, wait, they don’t.

And my point is that data trumps theory every time. What are the ‘revealed preferences’ of people who hold onto theories long after observations have proven them incorrect?

Yes.

“Rich people agree to this in principle by retaining their citizenship.”

You seem to be implying that if we change my hypothetical to include “you will pay the $65 unless you ‘choose’ to leave your job” that it would change the balance of justice in it.

I don’t think it does, nor do I think you have provided sufficient reason that I ought to suspect it should.

My point, which is really Friedman’s point, is that it isn’t wise as a general principle to set up an incentive structure where people can regularly vote themselves benefits without the expectation that they will be largely contributing to paying for them.

Is that really such a ridiculous point?

When Warren Buffett says his taxes are too low, what he really means is he thinks the taxes on the poor are too high.

It’s not like he WANTS to get rid of all his money. He’s just willing to pay a bit more so that the poorest pay a bit less.

So the reason he doesn’t voluntarily contribute more money is because he’s not a moron and he realizes that the bureaucracy will suck up his money and keep the taxes on the poor at the same rate.

I’m going to digress though…

The real UNDERLYING issue here is that the Richistanis (i.e. “screw-’em” conservatives, as compared to the nearly extinct Jeffersonian conservatives) wonder: “Why does Warren Buffet care if the poor are overtaxed? It’s not like they’d do anything for him if they had more money.” And since they can’t understand why Buffett would genuinely care about the powerless they smell a rat—he must have some ulterior motive!!

Must be because he gets pleasure out of feeling “holier-than-thou.” (G-dd-m do-gooders!!)

Well most liberals do have a desire to feel proud of their actions, and some may have an inordinate desire for it.

But as for me, and I hope for Buffett too, it’s a very calculated sense of social investment. I expect my children and grandchildren will live in America. I want them to live in a country that has very high quality of life across the board. Why? Because you that leads to social cohesion and low crime, not to mention. In the other direction—a large oppressed underclass—are the seeds of our very own Bolshevik Revolution. Or French Revolution. And I don’t want my successful kids to be guillotined by outraged mobs.

When a reactionary thinks of the poor, he thinks of a dumbass who will blow any extra money on beer and drugs. A bleeding-heart liberal thinks of a down-trodden yet noble soul who could achieve so much if only the path was made a little easier for him. The realist in me says there’s both types and a range in between, and the cynic in me says there’s more of the former than the latter.

However my egalitarian instincts force me to agree with Lincoln: “As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master.” And my Christian upbringing reminds me of the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have done unto you.”

Anyway, point is, Buffett isn’t insecure about not having enough wealth and so he isn’t too worried about having his taxes raised. But that doesn’t mean he’s going to fund the government on his own.

At some point (and we can have plenty of argument about where exactly that point is) you just get a majority voting itself more services without having to immediately worry about where the payment comes from because they vote the cost onto someone else.

This is reasonable point, and if you look at the tax system of European welfare states, you’ll see they are acutely aware of it. So when they introduced most saftey net features, the money for them was raised, on purpose, through relatively ‘even’ taxes, such as the VAT and obligatory social insurance systems. Both are effectively regressive taxes, but used to pay for progressive policies.

This is a good example of a wider point about democracies: while in theory they could lead to all kinds of dictatorships of the majority, in real life this doesn’t appear to happen.

But I think this distracts from the central point here, namely that it is perfectly reasonable to wish for tax increases for all, including oneself, while still not volunteering for an individual tax increase.

Apparently you don’t understand the basics of progressive taxation, the concept of marginal tax rate.

“By “rich,” I’m referring to people in the top 2 percent of the income and wealth distributions.”
To tell you the truth, I’m not overly concerned about the top 2 percent of the wealth. What I do, however, find disconcerting is that a household that makes $65,101 will pay 10% higher taxes than a household that earns $65,100. The newest solid numbers I could find were from the Census Bureau in 2005, but in that year: 28.22% of households made under $25,000 and 26.65% made under $50,000. So I’m not talking about the people on a pedestal, I’m talking about 54.87+% of the population who are in the two lowest tax brackets voting in increases for everyone above them.

“If communism means Leninist totalitarianism, then no. If it means democratic control of the economy, then yes.”
Communism – a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

And you said “The relevant moral principle is that whatever is socially produced (ie, everything) should be socially available…” in #61. Perhaps you could clarify.

“This doesn’t mean, however, that it’s moral (even if legal) to influence legislation simply by giving lots of money to legislators, or to hire lawyers who will thwart the clear intentions of the law… Perhaps you think the tax laws are actually enforced…. even if they were enforced, they’re bad enough…”
Well the beauty of a Republic is that if you don’t like your legislators taking bribes then you are welcome to either vote for other ones or run for office yourself. If enough other people feel that the same way that you do, you just may get elected. You stated “If it means democratic control of the economy, then yes.” We the people are in control of the economy and we vote in several different ways. One is at the ballot box, one is with our bank accounts, and one is with a jury of our peers. We can use any or all of these to affect change.

P.S. I’m enjoying our discussion. I hope you’ll excuse me if I’m rusty.