Cafe Hayek - Latest Comments in Motives

Re: Motives

True_Liberal — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 03:29:59 -0000

Mark asks:

"...is the 1% to 7% income tax going to generate revenue to cover the cost of public good provision by the government (e.g., national defense, education subsidies, basic scientific research, etc.)? If not, which government-provided public goods would be eliminated?"

While national defense is a public good recognized by the Constitution, there are far more federal programs that are not sanctioned therein and are better accomplished at the local level and/or by private enterprise.

How many federal programs have been initiated "for the public good" and then maintained long after their usefulness is ended, simply because they have acquired a narrow constituency? Private enterprise learns to recognize dead-end projects and kill them quickly.

Re: Motives

Charlie (Colorado) — Sun, 18 Jun 2006 16:46:56 -0000

What strikes me most about that email is that the author seems not to be aware that 7 percent of X is greater than 1 percent of X.

Given that, I'm not sure more complicated analysis is going to be the answer.

Re: Motives

Mark C. Foley — Sun, 18 Jun 2006 11:10:14 -0000

Hi ...

Back to Prof. Boudreaux's original letter, is the 1% to 7% income tax going to generate revenue to cover the cost of public good provision by the government (e.g., national defense, education subsidies, basic scientific research, etc.)? If not, which government-provided public goods would be eliminated?

Thanks,

Mark C. Foley

Re: Motives

johngaltline — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 04:34:53 -0000

Don, this is really brilliant stuff. I've been trying to develop this idea for weeks, and you've just knocked it out of the park in two sentences:

"Why does my correspondent assume that those of us who argue for lower taxes are greedy and irresponsible? Why can't such people at least assume us to be mistaken in our economics rather than evil in our motives?"

Bingo. The answer is: Because your economics are irrelevant. Egalitarians answer to a higher power. I want to say "God only knows what that higher power is," but I'm highly doubtful that God is involved.

Swimmy -- thanks for posting this gem:

"Disagree with someone on the right and he is likely to think you obtuse, wrong, foolish, a dope. Disagree with someone on the left, and he is likely to think you selfish, a sell-out, insensitive, possibly evil."

-Joseph Epstein

Re: Motives

Swimmy — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 14:28:38 -0000

people will always oppose capitalism so long as they think that its fundamental base, rational self-interest, is evil

The economist doesn't see rational self-interest as the basis for capitalism, but the very nature of human beings. Even if we abandoned all our current institutions and adopted a socialist government, people would still be rationally self-interested. (And that very nature would undermine whatever socialism we'd tried to establish.) I feel no need to convince people that it's moral to use their reason to attain their desired ends (whether selfish or altruistic). Only to convince them that they and others do so.

Re: Motives

Steven Donegal — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 13:52:49 -0000

"I believe, perhaps mistakenly, that the less government does, the better off nearly everyone in society will be. So I call for both lower tax rates and less tax revenues."

I guess that all depends on what you mean by "nearly everyone." If you really believe this as a categorical statement, then you are mistaken. Not evil or malicious, just mistaken.

Re: Motives

dj superflat — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 11:52:14 -0000

i run into this alot. people tend to assume that someone more conservative is evil, operating in bad faith, etc. by contrast, if someone is more liberal, you tend to think they are misguided, overly idealistic, etc. i, too, can't understand how people further left seem never to think you might have different views based on a good faith analysis of what's better for all, rather than just operating on selfishness, greed, whatever.

Re: Motives

SaulOhio — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 09:19:09 -0000

Please don't shy away from defending selfishness. Capitalism depends on the selfishness of individuals in order to function. Ayn Rand was right when she observed that people will always oppose capitalism so long as they think that its fundamental base, rational self-interest, is evil, no matter how practical it is. They will continue to choose the moral over the practical (At least in their political lives.)

Re: Motives

Swimmy — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 08:54:26 -0000

99:

I think you're overanalyzing. People on the right makes just as many judgements based on personal morality as those on the left, and they condemn just as many lefties as evil. See: abortion. By reducing any number of nuanced views into pro-or-anti X, where X is your favorite moral subject, everyone can quickly become good or evil. Therefore, people who are not "pro-life" are "anti-life" or "pro-death." People who oppose the welfare state or government regulations must be "anti-poor" or "pro-rich" (hence, selfish or greedy.) Those who oppose the Patriot Act or the Iraq War are "un-American" or "pro-terrorist."

Not everybody establishes dualities like this. There are many intelligent people, with any number of varying political stances, who consider the totality of their opponent's arguments and respond in kind. The problem is not confined to the left. It's no different than constructing straw-men, and I'd hope few are naïve enough to confine the straw-man fallacy to one end of the political spectrum.

Re: Motives

al — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 03:44:33 -0000

Save The Rustbelt,

Don't forget firing the Supreme Court clerks. I often disagree with you but that was a fine list.

Re: Motives

Chris Meisenzahl — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 03:36:10 -0000

You are dead-on as usual Dr. Boudreaux!

Re: Motives

Mike Van Winkel — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 03:30:11 -0000

I think it's an interesting psychological observation that those with generally libertarian views are more apt to assume their interlocuter rational than those with generally statist views. More evidence that politics is deeply embedded?

Re: Motives

cyberike — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 17:56:02 -0000

I think you guys are missing the point. Government is not going to be reduced (because there is too much demand), and we are not paying for the government we are getting. I agree with The Atlantic, when you are getting more than what you are paying for, you are going to want more of it. The only way to get a reduction is to pay the full cost of what you receive. Then, and only then, will there be a demand for less government.

I see a post from STR, detailing what he would cut. How much government spending does all that represent? We all know the big programs, Social Security, Medicare, Defense, Interest, and Medicaid. None of those are going to be reduced. Those 5 represent, what, 80% of federal spending? I may be off a little.

Demand that those programs be reduced. If you don't, or can't, then you want more than you are paying for, and you are greedy. I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask people to pay for what they get.

Re: Motives

99 — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 17:55:06 -0000

Professor:

The left usually makes its arguments from the perspective of morality. It simply doesn't occur to them that other people look at the evidence around them and simply draw different conclusions about what will or what won't work. They cannot conceive that what to them is very obviously "correct" is not so obvious to others. They thus conclude that the non-leftist with whom they're arguing has got his morality wrong.

Rightists, on the other hand, tend to operate in exactly the opposite fashion. They (and I) typically assume the lefty fellow they're debating is dull-witted, or misinformed about the facts.

My guess is the personality type that lacks empathy (perhaps counterintuitively) makes one more likely to become a lefty. If you can't imagine yourself in the other person's shoes, you'll never imagine yourself with the other person's mind, or thought processes, and so you'll never be able to imagine he can arrive in good faith at different conclusions about the nature of reality from the conclusions you've arrived at.

Re: Motives

True_Liberal — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 17:51:45 -0000

The poor guy spends his $$ for a tattoo (useless in my eyes); the rich guy pays taxes so FEMA can squander it in NOT helping the poor in Katrina's wake (equally useless). But hey, it's only money...

(I am wondering, in the centenary year of the San Francisco quake and fire, just how much FEMA or predecessor agencies did to rebuild that city?)

Re: Motives

Scott — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 14:48:34 -0000

I wonder how much marginal utility was lost by Steelers fans from Roethlisberger's decision to not wear a helmet while riding his motorcycle. We should force NFL players to live in protective bubbles to ensure that marginal utility of fans isn't lost.

Re: Motives

Scott — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 14:40:14 -0000

Half Sigma,

Can you empirically prove that a poor man gets as much enjoyment from a tattoo as a rich man does from a Van Gogh?

Re: Motives

Robert Cote — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 13:16:35 -0000

"The tatoo is art for the poor man."

Brings a whole new meaning to "short sale" for some tatoos. Ouch.

Re: Motives

Half Sigma — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 13:00:20 -0000

"Why would buying lottery tickets and adding a fourth tatoo be a more efficient allocation than building small businesses and investing in corporate equities?"

The tatoo is art for the poor man. So whereas a wealthy man will pay tens of millions of dollars for a Van Gogh, the poor man will get just as much enjoyment from a tatoo. Thus the greater marginal utility of money for the poor man.

Re: Motives

Noah Yetter — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 12:28:46 -0000

"And those in the bottom half have a much greater marginal utility for their money..."

This cannot be known, because interpersonal utility comparisons are not possible.

Re: Motives

Karl Lembke — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 11:24:38 -0000

Your correspondent writes:

"I am probably in the top 10% of earners. I am perfectly happy to pay more than people of modest means. It is the obligation of a responsible society.

I hope George Mason students are not learning the virtues of selfishness."

Personally, I'm curious to know how much he gives, in taxes, over and above the minimum required by the law and his situation. How much money is listed under his name as "Voluntary contributions to reduce the public debt"?

Re: Motives

John Dewey — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:57:01 -0000

"And those in the bottom half have a much greater marginal utility for their money, so "progressive" tax creates a more efficient allocation of resources."

How can this be true? Why would buying lottery tickets and adding a fourth tatoo be a more efficient allocation than building small businesses and investing in corporate equities?

Re: Motives

Robert Cote — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:10:57 -0000

There's this ancient scrap of parchment that might be useful as a good start to Federal spending. This Constitution thingy doesn't appear to say much about Education or HUD for but two instances. Or another idea; adopt past budgets prorated for inflation and population JFK 61-62 comes to mind. Of course that would have the same effect as my first suggestion anyway. We have become the Federated States of America in practice. We need a standing group of States Representatives who's sole job would be rule on Constitutionality requiring 3/4ths approval. We used to call this the Congress but now Congress is the cat that needs a bell.

I'm a lot less excited by "subsidies." Oil company "subsidies?" You don't get to subsidies until they stop paying taxes. When the proposal is to stop subsidizing oil companies the honest translation is that it is a proposal to tax oil companies more.

Farm subsidies and military industrial complex subsidies are even more complicated. They are inefficient attempts at orderly markets. ANY attempt at establishing orderly markets is going by definition to be inefficient. The prospect of farmers or weapons builders wiped out and subesquent persistent shortages of their products dwarfs the cost of meddling.

Re: Motives

Half Sigma — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:07:09 -0000

"I don't understand progressive taxation."

The unequal distribution of wealth in this country is such that people in the bottom half really don't need to pay any taxes at all, because they don't have much to contribute anyway.

And those in the bottom half have a much greater marginal utility for their money, so "progressive" tax creates a more efficient allocation of resources.

I'll have to write about this at my blog one day, but you can read my post about why we should keep the estate tax, which basically explains that there's a general principle that tax is paid whenever money is transferred from one party to another, and I don't see why one particular transfer, from a dead person to a living person, should be exempt from the general principle.

http://www.halfsigma.com/20...

This doesn't mean that I'm not in partial agreement with Don Boudreaux that the government spends too much money.

Re: Motives

save_the_rustbelt — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 09:41:46 -0000

Anyone who is going to argue for tax cuts should be specific about spending cuts OR offer an alternate plan (as John Dewey did).

I'll start:

all farm subsidies

1/2 of all Congressional staff

1/2 of all White House staff

(these two will have a ripple effect as fewer bad ideas are generated)

all oil company subsidies

all international marketing programs for billion dollar companies

etc.