I explained my thinking because I can _imagine_ it to also describe someone like Buffet's thinking.

The top 0.1% have about 11% of the income in the US, or about $2Tn. So for someone like Buffet, a one-time contribution of half his net worth—which he has promised to do—is about $55Bn; an extra 1% effective taxation of the income of the 0.1% would be $200bn _per year_.

So even if you're Buffett—and even if you're pledged to donate have of your personal wealth to charity—it's a pretty small amount compared to the ongoing returns from a small tax increase.

I do strongly disagree with many of the things my tax money goes to, obviously. But I think this is where the "King of the World" thing comes in. ;)

It seems to me that Warren Buffet can do both though. He can pay more in taxes by not taking deductions or just giving more to the government and advocate for a higher rate. Lead by example.

For sure, but I assume his calculation may be similar to mine: that it's even more optimal to advocate for a higher tax rate and give his money directly to charities he chooses (which he has done, sort of, by pledging to give half his wealth to the Gates Foundation).

Wouldn't it make sense to just pay more taxes and also give away money to charities?

I mean, even if the tax rates are raised it's not like that money will universally (maybe not even majority) be applied to "good" programs... so once the tax rates are raised you're going to be funding more bombs and all that too. It's not going to just go to welfare (not using this term negatively) programs.

It seems to me if you want to reduce wealth inequality you could do something like pay for a few people each month. Kind of like a patron. Why wait for a government program in which some of the money will be siphoned off for bloat, some of it will not actually go to the issue you want to address, and even so you won't have much of a say in how the money is spent in the first place?

I actually run a non-profit. (Site is down at the moment b/c I didn't want to pay $300 for another year of Wix so I am going to redeploy it on S3 - where art thou time). I see a lot of other non-profits in my space who seem to be siphoning up money for not-so-great ideas and projects and general government contracts. Feels like nobody is really great at this stuff.

I may have been a little unclear. I'm typing this while in a meeting. ;)

My point was that a rational actor might believe that per dollar more good is done by the dollar being given directly to the charity of choice than to the government, but also believe in raising tax rates overall (as a means to social goods).

As a result, the actor should rationally prefer to give as much of their money as possible directly to the charity and not to taxes even while arguing for elevated taxes.

Hey me too! :)

I think the overall issue is that what I personally think someone should do is that if they believe in paying higher taxes, it shouldn't matter what anybody else does, they should just pay higher taxes or even spend money to lobby for higher taxes via campaign contributions, lobbyists, etc.

It just seems like mental gymnastics that some wealthy people use to avoid feeling bad that there are poor people by saying if only they raised taxes you'd pay more while also not paying more. Of course you'd pay more if taxes were raised, except in the case where taxes were raised and then you found loopholes or deductions to not pay them... It's just a way to convince yourself to have your cake and eat it too.

But even if taxes weren't raised, why can't you self-fund social programs? Even at a very basic level - food stamps. You could just offset how much you think you should pay in additional taxes by donating to food pantries or just buying people groceries. You don't need the government to do that. You could make a huge impact in your own community. We all could!

Some of my friends and friends of friends got stimulus money when that first stimulus came around. Based on the previous year's tax returns we received a couple hundred bucks or something. I don't remember exactly. Could have used the money for something? Sure. We could have taken the money and bought something we felt like buying, then went online and said it was a terrible thing that others didn't get enough money and we were getting money. We could have went and did what my friends did and buy new GPUs or something. No. We just turned right around and donated it to the Mid-Ohio Foodbank. They all went on about how they didn't need the money (obviously) and that it was sad people were losing their jobs and on lockdown and all of that and that the government should do something. Like.. why don't you do something? Take that $1,000 you got and turn around and give it to someone who needs it.

Please don't take that personally or anything - I'm exploring this with the aim of a good discussion. I'm not quite as well off as you but we do very well for ourselves and probably need to donate more money anyway. It just always drives me up the wall when Bill Gates or Warren Buffet come out and say they should pay more taxes... they can just do that. They don't need anyone else to. Am I more moral or more of a leader than they are? I highly doubt it. So what's left? Game theory? Or maybe they just want to craft a persona? Idk. I don't mind that people are wealthy. We certainly are depending on who we are being compared to, but I just feel like people are being dishonest with themselves and others on this particular topic, even if it's not intentional.

Don’t worry. I’m not at all offended. It’s a good faith discussion. :)

I think I agree more than I disagree. A few points:

1. Note that Buffet and Gates have both pledged to give half their wealth to charity in their lifetimes. Is your concern that half is too little, that it’s charity and not taxes, or something else?

2. For me personally, quite frankly, I absolutely struggle with the question of how much I should give. I could afford to give more than I do without impacting my lifestyle, and while I don’t live high on the hog maybe my lifestyle should be impacted. I struggle with this, because there’s no obvious answer—if you’re lucky enough to have disposable income, you can always afford to give a little more, no?

My personal view is that what I save now will go to charity when I (and my partner) die, so I don’t worry too much about it—I’m sure at that point the need will be as great as it is now. But I do think these are difficult questions, and I would certainly forgive anyone for having no pat answer to them.

Then again, there’s always the question of extremes. A la Peter Singer (I think), should I donate a kidney to a stranger? For me, utilitarianism says yes, but I just can’t bring myself to do that.

So is it possible I’m being less than fully rational and some of this is guilt assuaging? Yeah, I think so. But anyone as lucky as we are who doesn’t feel a bit of, well, if not guilt, then somehow conflicted about it is someone I really wonder about.

Thanks. I'm enjoying this and I hope you are too.

I'd say that for Buffet and Gates the issue is the terminology used. If instead of saying "I'm not taxed enough" they said "people need to give more" or something along those lines that would be fine with me. It's specifically that they're talking about not paying enough taxes while actively using methods to not pay those taxes that bothers me. I have little doubt that they write off their philanthropic contributions for example. Just... don't do that and there ya go. You paid the higher tax rate you say you want to pay. It's their insistence that they are unable to take action that bothers me. They can take action. They are the most capable people in the world who could take action. So for me I just can't believe that it's not marketing and trying to craft an image. Have you ever seen Becoming Warren Buffet on HBO by the way? Fun documentary if taken with a grain of salt.

I think your personal philosophy is in line with mine too. I try to donate time and energy and knowledge into endeavors and source money from others who have the same viewpoint you do. That allows me to have the benefit of working on compounding interest while still effectively doing something. But even then we give a little bit, certainly not enough.

> But anyone as lucky as we are who doesn’t feel a bit of, well, if not guilt, then somehow conflicted about it is someone I really wonder about.

Couldn't agree more. And I'm not sure if guilt is the right word? I feel what we would describe as guilt, but I'm not exactly doing anything "wrong" so it's a complex emotion for me.

If you're ever in Columbus, Ohio let me know - I'll buy you a beer.