I suppose. Based on my consequentialism, I’m not too bothered by that. I still think that “opt-out philanthropy” is interesting, though admittedly Bear Stearns did not give one the ability to opt-out.
Isn’t “opt-out philanthropy” just quasi-socialism? Or maybe socialism + democracy? I suppose the clear distinction is that tax structures are supposed to apply uniformly, and opt-out is specifically at the individual level.
How many people would take the time to opt out of paying a few thousand dollars in taxes every year? Perhaps if every line item in the budget had to be individually opted-out on a tax form each year it would work on a national scale.
Opt-out philanthropy would have a very similar effect that taxation does in a socialist society. The differences are that individuals can legally choose whether or not to pay and can also choose who to donate to under opt-out philanthropy. When you average out tax cheats, tax shelters, and philanthropic goals the effects of both seem pretty similar to me. I was wondering what would happen if a government switched from socialism to a pure opt-out donation system, e.g. you can download the national/state/local budget and an opt-out form every year, and fill out the opt-out form for each line item in the budget that you don’t want to donate toward. Then you make your yearly donation/pay your taxes and most people probably won’t spend time opting out of sane and worthwhile line items. Democratic socialism approximates such a system, but by turning line items on and off for everyone at the same time. That may not be optimal.
Opt-out philanthropy would have a very similar effect that taxation does in a socialist society. The differences are that individuals can legally choose whether or not to pay and can also choose who to donate to under opt-out philanthropy.
Those are two big differences, but otherwise I think you’re right. In other places of “Life You Can Save”, Peter Singer talks about opt-out philanthropy in the form of an additional 1% income tax automatically donated to a GiveWell top charity, unless you change either the target or opt-out completely.
~
you can download the national/state/local budget and an opt-out form every year, and fill out the opt-out form for each line item in the budget that you don’t want to donate toward. [...] Democratic socialism approximates such a system, but by turning line items on and off for everyone at the same time. That may not be optimal.
I don’t think democratic socialism approximates the system, because no actual (legal) opt-outing takes place. Secondly, my intuitions would be that such a system for all taxes would be disastrous in the case that I predict it would massively lower the government budget and make funding programs completely unpredictable.
I suppose. Based on my consequentialism, I’m not too bothered by that. I still think that “opt-out philanthropy” is interesting, though admittedly Bear Stearns did not give one the ability to opt-out.
Isn’t “opt-out philanthropy” just quasi-socialism? Or maybe socialism + democracy? I suppose the clear distinction is that tax structures are supposed to apply uniformly, and opt-out is specifically at the individual level.
How many people would take the time to opt out of paying a few thousand dollars in taxes every year? Perhaps if every line item in the budget had to be individually opted-out on a tax form each year it would work on a national scale.
Is it? What does “quasi-socialism” mean? And if it is quasi-socialism, why would that matter?
Opt-out philanthropy would have a very similar effect that taxation does in a socialist society. The differences are that individuals can legally choose whether or not to pay and can also choose who to donate to under opt-out philanthropy. When you average out tax cheats, tax shelters, and philanthropic goals the effects of both seem pretty similar to me. I was wondering what would happen if a government switched from socialism to a pure opt-out donation system, e.g. you can download the national/state/local budget and an opt-out form every year, and fill out the opt-out form for each line item in the budget that you don’t want to donate toward. Then you make your yearly donation/pay your taxes and most people probably won’t spend time opting out of sane and worthwhile line items. Democratic socialism approximates such a system, but by turning line items on and off for everyone at the same time. That may not be optimal.
Those are two big differences, but otherwise I think you’re right. In other places of “Life You Can Save”, Peter Singer talks about opt-out philanthropy in the form of an additional 1% income tax automatically donated to a GiveWell top charity, unless you change either the target or opt-out completely.
~
I don’t think democratic socialism approximates the system, because no actual (legal) opt-outing takes place. Secondly, my intuitions would be that such a system for all taxes would be disastrous in the case that I predict it would massively lower the government budget and make funding programs completely unpredictable.