Me encuentro con esta pieza en la blogósfera. Lean.
Steve Landsburg
Just a couple of days ago, President Obama excoriated the Republican Congress for wanting to keep tax rates low for “people like me” — that is, people who, like the President, have very high incomes.
Now we learn that on an income of $1.7 million, the Obamas paid $450,773 in taxes, taking full advantage of the Bush tax cuts. I think it is fair to ask: If the President believes that people like him ought to be paying more, then why didn’t he pay more? There is absolutely no rule against sending in more money than you owe.
Now you might say that the Obamas believe it’s important to raise many billions more in taxes, and that sending in an extra hundred thousand or so would make essentially no progress toward that goal. But I don’t think you’d continue to say that if you thought about it. If the Obamas are one of, say, a million families in their financial position, and if the Obamas, and only the Obamas, send in some extra money, that’s only (by Mr Obama’s reckoning) one one-millionth as good as repealing the Bush tax cuts — but at the same time it’s costly to only one one-millionth as many taxpayers. Surely these things should scale.
In fact, since you’d expect the first hundred thousand to go to the most urgent use, the president’s contribution should be worth more than one one-millionth of a million contributions, while still imposing costs on only one one-millionth as many people. If repealing the Bush tax cuts is a good deal, the Obamas’ extra voluntary contribution would be an even better one.
So the Obama position seems to be that a) the rich ought to meet obligations over and above what the current tax code requires; b) the Obamas are rich, and c) the Obamas choose to meet no obligations over and above what the current tax code requires.
It’s almost enough to make you begin to doubt his sincerity.
------------
¿Qué tal?
Vaya decir que Steve es un excelente profesor, con la siguiente historia de vida:
Steven E. Landsburg is a Professor of Economics at the University of Rochester, where students recently elected him Professor of the Year. He is the author of The Armchair Economist, Fair Play, More Sex is Safer Sex, The Big Questions, two textbooks in economics, a forthcoming textbook on general relativity and cosmology, and over 30 journal articles in mathematics, economics and philosophy. His current research is in the area of quantum game theory. He writes the monthly “Everyday Economics” column in Slate magazine, and has written regularly for Forbes and occasionally for the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post. He appeared as a commentator on the PBS/Turner Broadcasting series “Damn Right”, and has made over 200 appearances on radio and television broadcasts over the past few years.
Professor Landsburg considers himself to be the most important figure in the world of modern poetry, in consequence of his status as the only living being who reads poetry but does not write it. He is the audience. All of his favorite poems are here.
Así que además de tener un buen sentido del humor, escribe libros de texto sobre economía, teoría de la relatividad y teoría de juegos cuánticos por igual! Referencia e inspiración, sin lugar a dudas
¿Pero qué pasa con sus opiniones sobre los impuestos de los Obama?
A mí no me convencieron por dos razones principales. Dice que la contribución voluntaria de los Obama tendría un mayor impacto sobre el gasto que el resto de las contribuciones de su bracket de ingreso. Asume que el ingreso adicional se gastaría en los más urgente, como si asumiera una suerte de rendimiento decreciente al bienestar social del ingreso público. Aunque tiene sentido teórico (por ejemplo, en un mundo de información perfecta), se me hace un poco ingenuo: basta ver el patrón de gasto del estímulo fiscal de hace un par de años para darse cuenta que no siempre los recolectores van por la "low-hanging fruit," como le dicen allá. La escala importa. Si necesito una carretera de 1 millon de dólares, no construyo una décima parte si recibo 100 mil dólares. La segunda razón es política. Jala por los pelos la interpretación para dudar de la sinceridad de Obama. Demasíado.
Moraleja. Los comentarios que le hacen a la entrada valen mucho la pena. Mike H menciona el problema de la asimetría entre usos y fuentes del ingreso adicional, tópico similar a mi crítica. Luego dice:
There’s even room for a ‘tragedy of the commons’ type justification here. Many people, quite reasonably, support a Carbon tax or ETS, but equally reasonably don’t offset their emissions in the absence of one. Perhaps Obama’s personal reaction to the Bush Tax Cuts is similar.
Buen comentario. El comportamiento humano, incluído el económico, no es mecanicista, ni reversible: se aleja bien rápido del homo economicus convencional para mostrar su compleja cabeza. Bennett Haselton lo corrige respecto a la imposibilidad del IRS para recibir mas plata de la que el contribuyente de verdad debe. Aunque recuerdo en las formas de impuestos que había brackets para hacer donaciones....
Moraleja II: Todos intentamos explicarnos el mundo. A veces tropezamos. Mejor hacerlo honestamente.
