Without entering into the issue of how efficient redistribution actually is, I think that the argument does not take into account a plausible collective action problem involved.
Suppose there are 100 people. 90 have wealth of $0, and 10 have wealth of $1000. Each person values wealth to themselves at 1 util, and to any other person at 0.2 utils. Then no one has incentive to donate. If no one donates, rich people enjoy 1000 utils each.
If, however, we take 100 dollars of each rich person and give it to the poor, rich people will have 900 utils of personal wealth. $1000 will be raised for the poor. Each rich person will get 1000*0.2 utils from that. Then the rich would achieve a total of 1100 utils each.
So I would say that there is at least a prima facie case for it being perfectly reasonable that a person maybe in favor of redistribution but not donate money themselves.
Agreed--I'd only note that this suggests that a rich person may have a self-interested reason (rather than a moral reason) to support redistribution but not to donate.
Thanks for the reply. My non-philosopher view is that taking someone else's welfare into account in your utility function is what morality is all about (and that you don't have to care as much about others as you do about yourself to be moral).
I don't think it makes someone like Bernie Sanders who is wealthy, a hypocrite, per se, but it does raise questions. There is no barrier to just straight up giving money to the Treasury or IRS. In fact, they have a donation page.
But this does not only apply to the rich. I have talked with many homeowners who claim that housing is a human right, that rich landlords should be forced to house the poor. Maybe this is morally correct, but I then point out that, as a homeowner, they needn't wait for landlords to act, they can be the change they wish to see and invite the homeless to live with them.
These moral convictions are tossed out the window when they have to pay for them, instead, they want to force others to take action. Overall, it is better if we did not tax income at all and instead tax land, resources, and other unearned rents. That way, money is not coming out of anyone's pocket or hard earned paycheck: https://www.lianeon.org/p/just-tax-the-land
Without entering into the issue of how efficient redistribution actually is, I think that the argument does not take into account a plausible collective action problem involved.
Suppose there are 100 people. 90 have wealth of $0, and 10 have wealth of $1000. Each person values wealth to themselves at 1 util, and to any other person at 0.2 utils. Then no one has incentive to donate. If no one donates, rich people enjoy 1000 utils each.
If, however, we take 100 dollars of each rich person and give it to the poor, rich people will have 900 utils of personal wealth. $1000 will be raised for the poor. Each rich person will get 1000*0.2 utils from that. Then the rich would achieve a total of 1100 utils each.
So I would say that there is at least a prima facie case for it being perfectly reasonable that a person maybe in favor of redistribution but not donate money themselves.
Agreed--I'd only note that this suggests that a rich person may have a self-interested reason (rather than a moral reason) to support redistribution but not to donate.
Thanks for the reply. My non-philosopher view is that taking someone else's welfare into account in your utility function is what morality is all about (and that you don't have to care as much about others as you do about yourself to be moral).
I don't think it makes someone like Bernie Sanders who is wealthy, a hypocrite, per se, but it does raise questions. There is no barrier to just straight up giving money to the Treasury or IRS. In fact, they have a donation page.
But this does not only apply to the rich. I have talked with many homeowners who claim that housing is a human right, that rich landlords should be forced to house the poor. Maybe this is morally correct, but I then point out that, as a homeowner, they needn't wait for landlords to act, they can be the change they wish to see and invite the homeless to live with them.
These moral convictions are tossed out the window when they have to pay for them, instead, they want to force others to take action. Overall, it is better if we did not tax income at all and instead tax land, resources, and other unearned rents. That way, money is not coming out of anyone's pocket or hard earned paycheck: https://www.lianeon.org/p/just-tax-the-land