How Can I be a Libertarian if...

[itsstillmatt]

Originally Posted by Tck13

What little I've read about Austrian Economics is that it's focused on the Consumer as opposed on the bottom line which, as you say, is quite the fallacy of economics. I'd like to learn more about it but I can't find any decent books.
The Road to Serfdom - Hayek Human Action - Mises A Constitution of Liberty - Hayek also worth reading are La Loi - Bastiat Economics in One Lesson - Hazlitt

 

[Tck13]

Originally Posted by iammatt

The Road to Serfdom - Hayek
Human Action - Mises
A Constitution of Liberty - Hayek

Thanks, I'll check into those. I've been looking into Mises (Mises.org) and The Foundation for Economic Education Fee.org but nobody really goes much into depth about the philosophies of Austrian Economics (other than Wiki, etc.)

 

[Fuuma]

Originally Posted by iammatt

The Road to Serfdom - Hayek
Human Action - Mises
A Constitution of Liberty - Hayek

also worth reading are

La Loi - Bastiat
Economics in One Lesson - Hazlitt

The road to serfdom should be required reading in schools and it's not like I can be accused of being an Hayek fan...

 

[emptym]

Originally Posted by Piobaire

...Charity would pick up the ball for a certain number of folks,...

One interesting thing to me in that NYTimes chart Dewey posted about American spending habits was that people in the lowest fifth gave more money to charity than they paid in taxes and vastly more money, proportionate to income, than the top fifth.

I'm not sure how or if this is related, but I've often thought that being a libertarian was just another way of saying "leave me alone." Is this true or not? Help me get over my prejudices, if you feel like it.

 

[Piobaire]

Originally Posted by emptym

One interesting thing to me in that NYTimes chart Dewey posted about American spending habits was that people in the lowest fifth gave more money to charity than they paid in taxes and vastly more money, proportionate to income, than the top fifth.

I'm not sure how or if this is related, but I've often thought that being a libertarian was just another way of saying "leave me alone." Is this true or not? Help me get over my prejudices, if you feel like it.

Sorry, you have to get over your own prejudices, just like the Church did regarding heliocentric models

Could you link that chart? Off the top of my head, the bottom fifth pay about $0.00 in federal income taxes, so I want to see what the definition of "taxes" was. Also, I have some other thoughts regarding giving differences. The richest guys I know tend to give in huge chunks and they tend to plan their giving. I know a guy that just gave nearly $20 million to a hospital, in the same year he gave $1 million towards a capital campaign to another non-profit and I know he's planning to give $1 million to another non-profit in '09. I am no where near this guy's league, I mean, I'm a flea compared to his elephant, but I too plan my giving, trying to do something that is completely meaningful in and of itself, like supplying the computers for a lab for underprivileged kids. As regards planning, I know I am not making any new commitments until I see who gets elected POTUS. I can only speak for myself, but I am ready to turn off the faucets to pay my extra taxes. Lastly, I review the United Way campaign at my organization and I can tell you the top earners give more, both gross and %, and all my top 20 earners give where maybe 10% of my bottom 100 earners give.

All purely anecdotal, but as it was pointed out to me, very few people even make 250k or more, so I figure several data points carry some weight. Another interesting anecdote, is remember when they examined Gore's taxes vs. Bush's? Mr. Liberal gave squat and Dubya gave a bunch. Don't always judge people by their political alignment

 

[Tck13]

Originally Posted by Piobaire

Hey, whoa. Your OP had nothing about "more effective" in it. You just asked, "What would happen if..."

Further, do not think in a vacuum. There will be some huge shifts in demand and payments if all these other government programs went away, like Medicare and Medicaid. Those two groups utilize an extremely high rates vs. the rest of the population. Change the utilization pattern of those two groups and you will have a huge ripple effect in the whole system.

You left out the private / non profit sector. Don't you think that those sectors could do a better job of safety netting those in need? Less bureaucracy would mean more effectiveness?

 

[Piobaire]

Originally Posted by Tck13

You left out the private / non profit sector. Don't you think that those sectors could do a better job of safety netting those in need? Less bureaucracy would mean more effectiveness?

I did not leave out non-profit, my original reply mentioned charity, i.e. non-profit. As to the private sector...umm, where would the profit motive lie in providing a safety net to society?

 

[itsstillmatt]

Originally Posted by Fuuma

The road to serfdom should be required reading in schools and it's not like I can be accused of being an Hayek fan...
I agree, but wonder why you think so. I think it is a wonderfully written book, even if you disagree with the premises.

 

[Piobaire]

Originally Posted by iammatt

I agree, but wonder why you think so. I think it is a wonderfully written book, even if you disagree with the premises.

*grumble* Okay, been 15 or 20 years since I read it. You guys have talked about it so much I need to go rummage through my library, see if I still have it, and read it again.

 

[emptym]

Originally Posted by Piobaire

Sorry, you have to get over your own prejudices, just like the Church did regarding heliocentric models

Don't we all need help w/ our prejudices?

Although, silly me, I see that iammatt's book recs. should help.

Could you link that chart?

Here you go.

Off the top of my head, the bottom fifth pay about $0.00 in federal income taxes, so I want to see what the definition of "taxes" was.

It just said "taxes," which, I would think would include state income, sales, property, and maybe other fees, such as for a driver's license.

Also, I have some other thoughts regarding giving differences. The richest guys I know tend to give in huge chunks and they tend to plan their giving. I know a guy that just gave nearly $20 million to a hospital, in the same year he gave $1 million towards a capital campaign to another non-profit and I know he's planning to give $1 million to another non-profit in '09.

I wonder how much of the reason for giving in "huge chunks" is the desire (1) for recognition in the form of having something (a hospital wing) named after oneself, (2) to get something in exchange (my son into Harvard), (3) to get control over a particular donation (a scholarship for Italian-Americans) or (4) some general say in the institution (becoming a member of a board). (5) Finally, they often do it for social reasons: for bragging rights, or simply to fit in with people's expectations w/in certain circles (becoming a member of high society). I know not all "big" donors donate in big chunks for this reason, but I know many do.

Don't always judge people by their political alignment

I don't believe I was, was I? And in any case, I've been registered non-partisan since I was 18. ("Independent" is a party in NV, where I'm registered.) Why? Because I believe in both collective and individual responsibility, just as I believe in original and personal sin.

 

[Piobaire]

Edit: I just re-read this but am a little too wasted to retype. If the tone comes off as argumentative, it's not meant too. Just best I can do right now

Originally Posted by emptym

I wonder how much of the reason for giving in "huge chunks" is the desire (1) for recognition in the form of having something (a hospital wing) named after oneself, (2) to get something in exchange (my son into Harvard), (3) to get control over a particular donation (a scholarship for Italian-Americans) or (4) some general say in the institution (becoming a member of a board). (5) Finally, they often do it for social reasons: for bragging rights, or simply to fit in with people's expectations w/in certain circles (becoming a member of high society).

I know not all "big" donors donate in big chunks for this reason, but I know many do.

To all this, I say, "So?" I thought you Xtians were big on not judging? Here you are looking gift horses in the mouth it seems! You would not have raised all this unless you felt it had meaning or merit, so I am left to assume you feel this somehow mitigates, or even negates, the generous gifts that change lives.

The chart: how can a household make ~10k and consume over 18k? Seems like they must be getting transfer payments from the taxpayers in some manner. Now, to this claim you made:

One interesting thing to me in that NYTimes chart Dewey posted about American spending habits was that people in the lowest fifth gave more money to charity than they paid in taxes and vastly more money, proportionate to income, than the top fifth.

Well, let's do some math. We'll just use the income figure for the poorest fifth, not the obviously augmented consumption figure.. Here's the numbers with percentages relative to income:

Income lowest fifth: $9974
Taxes: $927 which equals 9.3% of income.
Charitable contributions: $1054 which equals 10.56% of income.

Total percent of tax and charitable contributions to income: 19.86%

Income highest fifth: $149963
Taxes: 23376 which equals 15.7% of income.
Charitable contributions: $7040 which equals 4.7%

Total percent of tax and charitable contributions to income: 20.3%

Conclusion: roughly equal percents of income go to a combined tax burden and charitable contributions. Unknown: how the poorest fifth consume more than they earn, but the assumption is transfer payments or subsidized services from higher wage earners. Add in what these poor families have given to them through "the system" and the figures do not even stack up close.

Also, whereas the highest fifth will itemize tax returns, therefore charitable contributions can be quantified through documentation, I am sure no one making 10k is itemizing. How then was this charitable contribution found? Self report? We all know people over report positive things and under report less flattering things. I am dubious of the reported figures in lieu of further knowledge of the data gathering method.

 

[emptym]

I never said I wouldn't take the money! It's both the thought/intention and the action/outcome that matter. I'm just saying there are many reasons why large donations are not always altruistic. Now small donations may not always be altruistic either. People get guilted into buying the $5 candybar, etc. On judging: People, including most Xns, don't read that passage about judging closely enough. It says "Why do you see the splinter in your brother's eye, when you do not see the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your eye and then you will be able to see clearly to help your brother remove the splinter." It's kind of like your beloved Cave analogy. We go up to see the Sun, then return to help others. And I have so obviously removed my logs, my poor splintered friend.

My assumption was that the discrepancy between a 10k income and a 18k outlay had something to do with credit card and other debt. You make a good point that contributions are proportionately equal if you add taxes to gifts. Either way, I think I was wrong to use the word "vastly." I also think your question about the way they came up w/ the figures is a good one. On a related note, I remember Massachusetts papers reporting some study a few years ago that said that poorer states, like Mississippi, give more (proportunate to income I assume) to charities than richer ones, like Mass. Reminds me of what JC said about the widdow and her mite...

 

[emptym]

I'm wondering, P, you know how you mentioned that contributions could be measured by the combined figure of taxes and charitable contributions? I wonder if gifts would be increased by the same amount that taxes decreased? Wouldn't they need to be if taxes should be reduced? Then again, you might bring out the old argument that gov't is wasteful and less money given to charities would be more efficient, which probably is true. But then again, a lot of charities are funded to a great extent by federal and state taxes...

 

[Piobaire]

Originally Posted by emptym

I'm wondering, P, you know how you mentioned that contributions could be measured by the combined figure of taxes and charitable contributions? I wonder if gifts would be increased by the same amount that taxes decreased? Wouldn't they need to be if taxes should be reduced? Then again, you might bring out the old argument that gov't is wasteful and less money given to charities would be more efficient, which probably is true. But then again, a lot of charities are funded to a great extent by federal and state taxes...

All things I ponder. Also, due to current circumstances, I am wondering what will happen when the Obama tax increases hit? As I said above, I am making no commitments past December '08, so I figure I am not the only one. He is already talking about removing the SS cap, in one form or another, and that one move would kill all my donations except for a K here or there to things almost mandatory for me to give at least something to (like United Way). Now removal of that cap will not hit the truly wealthy, as they do not derive most of their income from wages, so they might keep giving, depending on their other tax raises of course.

As to the thought the poorest fifth is continually fueling their 8k consumption gap through credit cards? Well, can you think of any company that would extend you 90% of your gross income on an ongoing basis? No, people making 10k per year are not adding 8k to credit card bills every year. In two years they will owe double what they make, in unsecured credit. I think the deficit consumption is obviously fueled by transfer payments, e.g. EITC, and subsidies, e.g. food stamps, Medicaid, etc.