
An Analysis of Motivations for Income Redistribution [pdf] - jackgavigan
http://www1.cmc.edu/pages/faculty/dbjerk/Behindtheveil7.pdf
======
hasbroslasher
Of course desire for redistribution is motivated by self-interest! Why should
laypeople starve while an ever tinier class of people continues to own and
profit from the world? The irony of the "they just want free shit" people is
the sad truth that the wealthy are constantly acting out of political self-
interest as well, just that their interests are lessening the government's
interference with their finances.

The irony I always see in these scenarios is affluent people's short term
memory about history - the invading barbarians, the destruction of the
aristocrats' temples, the brutal dictatorships that gained hold from popular
outrage about the bourgeois. There's an easy way to prevent this kind of
thing, and it's by fostering a society where people can't get angry enough (or
powerful enough) to do something totally stupid. A second American revolution
seems unlikely as of today, but our current political landscape is telling
about how royally broken the world is soon to become.

~~~
TACIXAT
I have a decent income (s.t. it would be measurably reduced in an income
redistribution situation) and I want it for self-interest reasons as well. I
would be taxed more, sure, but I wouldn't have to worry about someone robbing
me because they are starving. If we could improve the stability of society by
giving the less fortunate a little off the top, that is really in line with my
interests.

~~~
grb423
Voluntary charity is always an option for you. Don't most people mean
_mandatory_ , state-controlled taking from you to give to someone else when
discussing this subject? Would you support "measurably reducing" _my_ income
so you don't get robbed? So _I_ don't get robbed?

~~~
aninhumer
Yes I (and probably the parent) mean mandatory state-controlled taxation. Yes
we support measurably reducing _both_ of our incomes so _neither_ of us get
robbed. And yes I support doing so against your wishes if a majority of
society votes for it.

If you object to that, please make that argument instead of just asking
rhetorical questions.

------
dax1928
Some people have pride in needing less. I have always been paranoid that I
overstay my welcome, or that I'm too needy. I obsess over efficiency, and
strive to require less to function than the others around me. I seek to be a
provider, not a consumer - that sort of reputation is an ideal (especially
here in the South) and proves that I am stronger. It is a constant competition
that ultimately enable my species (specifically the environment in which it
dwells) to have more resources to work with.

Do not fall victim to envy and anger at the "one-percent". They have great
responsibility, and there will exist a balance if they do not properly manage
their resources (not necessarily in the form of redistribution). Just find the
humor in the silly things money buys that only offer the utility of announcing
wealth.

------
tjic
"People like free shit."

How hard is that?

The abstract says it in a bit more formal academic tones: " The findings
suggest that for most people, the motivation for redistribution is financial
self-interest".

But put it to a vote to pretty much any group of people, at any time, in any
place, and they'd prefer to steal from their neighbors than they would to work
themselves.

The trick of civilization is curb this impulse, thus allowing the generation
of positive sum games.

As Milton Friedman once said (and apologies for butchering this; it's from
memory): the wonder of capitalism is that it's the only system that restrains
the capitalists.

...by which he means that every society has rapacious take-no-prisoners
people.

The trick is to channel that into METAPHORIC rape and take-no-prisoners, and
away from the literal implementation.

~~~
BeetleB
Your comment seems to imply that the people in favor of income redistribution
are the ones that think that way.

But so do those who are against redistribution. I've yet to meet a person who
was against redistribution, _as well as_ against certain benefits they get
from tax money (police force, etc).

Taxpayer provided services is income redistribution. Some people's incomes are
being used to provide other people services.

 _Everyone_ wants free shit. That's why your comment is a bit of a non-
statement. It's similar to saying "Everyone likes food". Or "Everyone likes
money." It doesn't explain anything.

~~~
brbsix
> I've yet to meet a person who was against redistribution, as well as against
> certain benefits they get from tax money (police force, etc).

I've met plenty. There are those who relish the opportunity for free market
alternatives to public police forces.

~~~
BeetleB
>I've met plenty. There are those who relish the opportunity for free market
alternatives to public police forces.

You've met them for police forces. But have you met any that are against _all_
taxpayer supported services?

The big one being: No military?

Other than that: No transportation services (road maintenance, etc). I've met
people who quickly say they want that privatized and voluntarily paid for, but
when I really make them think about it, they change their mind quickly. There
are always places they want to drive to that they do not want to pay for.

And even if you have met such a person, they really are a minority of people
in the group who are against wealth redistribution.

~~~
ArkyBeagle
"No military" was an actual thing in the United States prior to WWII. See any
good bio. of Eisenhower for details

~~~
sokoloff
We've had a navy since 1775.

~~~
dragonwriter
> We've had a navy since 1775.

That's the tradition, but its not entirely true; the Continental Navy was
formed in 1775, but disbanded 10 years later in 1785, and it was nearly
another decade before the US Navy was formed in 1794.

~~~
sokoloff
Thanks for the fact correction (seriously).

In any case, anything in the 18th century is well before Eisenhower... ;)

~~~
ArkyBeagle
I hope my explanations to the others helps to clarify what I mean. I omitted
needful words :)

------
Eridrus
I think it's an interesting theory, but I don't find myself very convinced.

Competing hypothesis: People's motivations are less driven by self-interest
when the discussion is an abstract one and more driven by self-interest when
there are real losses and gains to be had. It still has a self-interest
component, but now the claim is that it is those who do not want
redistribution acting out of self interest. Self-interest is clearly a
component here, but singling it out as a motivation for wanting redistribution
makes for certain specific arguments.

I'm also not sure how transferable the results around distribution in a game
are for questions with societal implications; I know these sorts of
experiments are common in psychology, but I wonder if the limited scope of
this game means people are more willing to take everything they've earned
since many of the reasons to support redistribution do not exist in a game
setting, e.g. real suffering, not wanting violent revolution, etc.

------
n-exploit
I'd be interested in seeing a study on the distribution of philanthropic
efforts among the wealthy between domestic and international causes.

I fall on the side of wanting the government "out of my pockets" because I
question the overall effectiveness of domestic programmes in helping "the
poor". I may be ignorant, but like to think that international causes do a
better job of decreasing wealth inequality by supporting those at the very
lowest end of the spectrum in third world countries. Call me an asshole, but
understanding that no system is perfect, because America has one of the better
social/government systems in favor of economic mobility, government use of
taxpayer dollars for domestic programs targeting income redistribution should
be limited. While I do think that there are worthwhile programmes that support
the poor domestically, my position on income redistribution can be more easily
understood when looking at wealth inequality at a global scale.

~~~
sharemywin
Here's in interesting ted talk on an international aid issue that not talked
about alot:

[https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/the-hidden-
reaso...](https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/the-hidden-reason-for-
poverty-the-world-needs-to-address-now-mark-haugen-ted-talk-krsdl/)

------
jellicle
The current economic system is heavily redistributive. It works very strongly
to redistribute wealth and income from those who have little to those who have
a lot. The main function of two whole branches of government is maintaining
the wealth of people who have a lot.

What people are advocating for is _less_ income redistribution to the top.

It is worth noting that if you ask the public how wealth is distributed
currently, and how it should be, the U.S. public desires a sort of socialist
utopia, more equal than Sweden:
[http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton%20ariely.pdf](http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton%20ariely.pdf)

Note that people prefer that socialist utopia regardless of their personal
wealth and regardless of their political orientation. EVERYONE prefers that.
There is complete Democrat-Republican rich-poor consensus that the United
States would be better off if it were much more equal.

In the U.S. at least, and probably elsewhere, most of the opposition to social
welfare policies is rooted in racism. The best way to derail any proposed
social welfare idea is to talk about all the black people that will be helped
by it. This opposition has nothing do with how the individual will be affected
by the proposed policies in a monetary sense.

------
andrewclunn
Needs a follow up where people are playing for their whole families and the
ones making less for some reason have more kids. In other words, trying to
extrapolate from this to larger societal class conflicts misses a whole slew
of other issues.

------
Mendenhall
So in earnings known and earnings unknown, both groups predominately looked
after their own self interests. Thats always the predominate factor in groups.

------
grb423
If I get a check for X and my cardiologist gets a check for X as well why
would anyone put in the work to become a cardiologist? For his love of
mankind? For social status? Serious question. Didn't the 20th-century Marxists
try this?

~~~
AnimalMuppet
You get a check for X. The cardiologist gets a check for X, and _also_ gets
the income from working as a cardiologist. He/she then pays taxes on that
income, which leaves him/her on net probably at least somewhat worse off than
today, but still better off than you, who only get a check for X. It's that
"better off" part that motivates the cardiologist.

~~~
grb423
Do you think he would vote for that? Or, like similar systems in the last
century, would some, let's say state encouragement, be required?

~~~
aninhumer
No he wouldn't vote for that, but what does that have to do with your original
question?

And I feel like you're being very disingenuous by implying that him not
getting what he voted for is equivalent to communism.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
It isn't the original question, but I thought it was a legitimate one.

The cardiologists and their like can be outvoted. That's how it goes in a
democracy. But the number of people who lose on net may be greater than the
number of people who win on net. So the only way it gets implemented may be
through... let's say "undemocratic" means.

Note well: I'm not advocating this. I'm just pointing out that this may be the
way the politics works out.

~~~
aninhumer
Sure, I can imagine the points grb423 may have been implying, but by
presenting them as a series of vague rhetorical questions it makes it hard to
respond directly.

------
chickenfries
What is this "Majority of calls" you refer to in the title? Why not use the
title of the paper?

If anything, they found that calls against redistribution of income are most
likely motivated by self interest.

~~~
sctb
We updated the title from “Majority of calls for income redistribution are
motivated by self-interest”, which was editorialized.

