Young Liberals (2 Viewers)

[withoutaface]

Well, let's see. I'm:
- atheist
- pro-gay
- pro-choice

Oh thank fuck.

You're in the clear!

 

[Matt Samson]

No.

But don't worry I am there to push my Zionist agenda in order to fulfil the well-known conspiracy that the Zionists are taking over the world, all government institutions and all political parties.

We won't rest until the world is ours!

[/Sarcasm]

Bob Hawke was probably the most pro-Israel Prime Minister Australia has ever had.

 

[JaredR]

Bob Hawke was probably the most pro-Israel Prime Minister Australia has ever had.

And he, along with Menzies and Howard have a forest named after them in the Negev thanks to the JNF.

Am Yisroel Chai.

 

[what971]

Young Liberals are the gay. sif not be Libertarian.

Reduced Government, Lower Taxes, Socially Liberal to the point where you don't give a shit about what other people do with their lives. Perfection.

 

[what971]

but the NSW branch is so socially conservative, who wants to be a part of that?

 

[Besodeiah]

I don't even think there is a YL branch out here.

Maybe I should join the Nationals. They're pretty awesome. In my view.

 

[KFunk]

I would regard the right to clean water, food, shelter, medical services and education as basic rights and I believe the government should intervene to at least ensure all people have access to these basic rights. Beyond that I basically support unfettered economic freedom.

Aye, I'm still interested to know what the extreme economic right has to say on these issues. Admittedly I haven't been actively seaching, but I'm yet to see a particularly good argument for leaving health/food/etc to the market, and the market alone.

 

[gnrlies]

Sources?

The ‘crowding-out’effect of governmental transfers on private charitable contributions - BA Abrams, MD Schitz - Public Choice, 1978 - Springer

A Positive Model of Private Charity and Public Transfers
RD Roberts - The Journal of Political Economy, 1984 - UChicago Press

Giving with Impure Altruism: Applications to Charity and Ricardian Equivalence
J Andreoni - The Journal of Political Economy, 1989 - UChicago Press

Do Government Grants to Private Charities Crowd Out Giving or Fund-raising?
J Andreoni, AA Payne - American Economic Review, 2003 - atypon-link.com

There are heaps more... its a common area of research. These are mostly qualitative and theoretical but there are many more that provide quantitative evidence. Most notably these usually compare the rise in government spending since the great depression to the decline in mutual funds and private charities.

Obviously tax cuts will increase donations to charity. But the increase in donations to private charity will much be less than any decrease in public spending on welfare.

I've dealt with this many times (http://community.boredofstudies.org/...9457&page=10):

Suppose:

X = amount of welfare provided by the government

0.1 = proportion of our disposable income we give to charity

C = amount we currently give to charity

N = amount needed to ensure no one lives in poverty.

T =total amount provided in welfare and charity.

*suppose under current conditions with private charity and government provided welfare there is exactly enough charity and welfare to ensure no people live in poverty. Therefore, N = T.




Suppose now that we reduce government provided welfare by X to zero and pass this on to consumers through tax cuts.

So under new conditions X = 0

However C will increase by X*0.1 (propensity to give to charity * increase in disposable income due to tax cuts). So now, C = C + X*0.1

Since T decreases by X, but increases by X*0.1 and X > X*0.1, this means T decreases.

Hence T < N.

Hence as a result of tax cuts and correspondingly reduced welfare the total amount of welfare provided by the government and private charity is reduced

I think you are totally missing the point with respect to charity crowd out.

Peoples propensity to donate to charity will not be constant. Such an assumption is ridiculous. If the government is no longer providing transfer payments; the propensity to donate will increase. There is no better testimony to this, than to look at historic levels of charity. In the early 1900's there were few government hand outs. People were not 'entitled' to a hand out, they were 'fortunate' to receive one. Subsequently private charity prospered in order to fulfill this function. Also people tended to take care of their own needs by joining a mutual fund (kind of like insurance) when they get sick, or need temporary income support due to a lack of job. Now no-one does this because the government will do it for you!

 

[gnrlies]

Ok sure, lets suppose people are prepared to give more. Still how much of someone's income would they possibly be prepared to give away? Maybe it could increase to 20% of our income (thats very generous to your side of the argument). Even in this unlikely situation that's still a massive 80% reduction in the total amount of support being provided to the poor for every dollar transfered from public welfare to tax cuts.

Well I disagree with you. I dont think you are being generous. I am fairly sure that if government stopped playing a redistributive role that society would pick up a little more than 20% of the shortfall. If this was the case, it clearly demonstrates that governments are overproviding 5 times more than they should. Now whilst I do believe the government overprovides with respect to charity, I am fairly sure that enough people would be generous enough when they see profoundly disabled people begging on the street to cover the shortfall. More importantly however; if the government reduced its foray into the redistribution scene; there would be less need for government transfers. Government redistribution distorts incentives that discourages self sufficiency.

 

[gnrlies]

You mistake me. Not a 20% increase, an increase to a total of 20%. So based on my previous estimate of 10% (which is generous to begin with) I was actually conceeding a 100% increase. So I'm being extremely charitable to your argument. People are unlikely to ever give more than 20% of their disposable income to charity.

It's not an overprovison by government either. Welfare is a public good. As such, when left to a totally free markets, each individual has an insentive to underspend on private charity, becuase any donations they give will not have a significant effect on the final result (ie. crime, number of homeless in the area ect). So the dominant strategy is to give nothing to charity and hope others will provide it instead. Lets be honest, this is what most of us do. I know I do.

No I am not mistaking you. I was refering to your magical figure that is required to solve poverty (i.e. 20% of this figure is hardly generous).

The fallacy in your 'public good' arguement is that prior to the great depression we did actually suffice without government intervention in 'charity' and income redistribution. Instead the government gave people the tools required to help themselves (through a free market economy).

Certainly there are free rider issues assosciated with this, as of course it would be in one's own interest to not donate to charity even though one desires the outcome. But most research I have come across (regarding altriusm) suggests that people benefit from the act of giving more than necessarily the observable benefits. James Andreoni has a number of papers on this which might be worth checking out if you disagree (which you are allowed to of course). This might explain why a significant portion of charitable donations is actually faith based.

Some government intervention may be required in certain cases and I am not advocating that governments make zero contributions on behalf of tax payers; but governments over provide. Russell Roberts ("a positive model of private charity and public transfers") demonstrates that in a political equilibrium governments will overprovide due to sectional interests. Donor soverignty is extremely important here because if they dont like whats being done with their money; they are less inclined to donate. This is why government is not an optimal means of achieving this (because you simultaneously get charity crowd out as well as a complete erosion of donor sovereignty).

In anycase the key to the equation here isn't necessarily who provides the charity, but rather the disincentives that are provided when it is given by government. You could probably half the transfer amounts required in redistribution if you corrected the tax and welfare system. Other things such as personal private health insurance, and income insurance are private market solutions to much of what you talk about given that homelessness and crime are derrived from both mental health problems and prolonged unemployment.

 

[Enteebee]

One of the biggest problems with charity is that even if you want to donate to achieve X outcome you don't know how much you personally need to donate in order to achieve it, you may assume that your neighbour will donate Y amount and therefore you donate less... but if everyone does this then you don't achieve X outcome. The oddest thing about the libertarian position on this is that they want people to choose how much they give to charity to increase their freedom, yet do any anti-welfare candidates ever get elected by the people? It would seem that other than some fringe minorities people have freely decided they want welfare to be provided through government systems.

 

[Sastrawan]

hahaha. you are still mistaking me. 20% is not a figure needed to alleviate poverty. It is just an estimated percentage of disposable income that people will give to charity. Once again, do you really think people would give more than 20% of their income to charity? Unless you can demonstrate this, my argument stands and is indeed generous to you.

etc, etc, intelligent stuff.

Hey, I liked your formulae. Didn't understand them very much, but it's always nice to see someone present a knock-down argument with Xs and = signs all over the place.

Just out of interest, I've been trying to gauge by your posts, but are you right-of-centre or left-of-centre?

 

[Sastrawan]

Can't really categorise myself like that. For instance im almost indifferent between labor and liberal. I'd say economic centrist, socially very liberal.

High five Political apathy for the win. They're all crooks anyway.

 

[gnrlies]

hahaha. you are still mistaking me. 20% is not a figure needed to alleviate poverty. It is just an estimated percentage of disposable income that people will give to charity. Once again, do you really think people would give more than 20% of their income to charity? Unless you can demonstrate this, my argument stands and is indeed generous to you.

Omg.. I am not mistaking you... Read my posts again... (or re-read your own as you have said that there would be an 80% shortfall which implies that only 20% is provided by charity which is what I have been arguing against all along) But as I said, hopefully for the last time; I do not agree that this is generous. For one the socially desireble transfer would decline (due to new market incentives that eliminate the need for transfers) to lets say 50 and then private charity would provide 40 and then 10 can perhaps be solved by some form of govt intervention (tax incentives etc). Of course these numbers are purely arbitrary; but the point is that you are over simplifying the arguement too much with your equation. You cannot properly look at comparative statics without recognising the impacts that an exogenous change will have on that equilibrium.

People may not donate more than 20% of their income (although some will, some wont), but charitable donations as a percentage of the socially desired transfer will be well in excess of 20% because the amount needed will fall (btw I am changing the terminology used because we dont have a poverty problem in australia so to claim that we need to transfer to solve poverty is misleading). The majority of welfare government gives is not required (it is mostly middle class welfare).

Maybe check out this book (you can get bits of it on google books I think)

"From mutual aid to the welfare state: fraternal societies and social"
By David T. Beito

Im not sure if its the best book in the world on the subject but ive read bits of it and it makes some valid points...

This is not a fallacy. A fallacy is an argument that is logically flawed in its form. You are merely pointing out other content that may be relevent. I can't really comment further as you've provided no detail.

It is a kind of error in reasoning if the conditions that make it a public good are not met (non excludability - i.e. the fuzzy feeling you get from donating is only enjoyed by the donor; not the public at large). In anycase why get into semantics?

Sure I accept all that, obviously there must be some reasons why people give anything to charity at all. Still doesn't prove that they would make up anywhere near the shortfall that would result from cessation of public welfare.

There is also significant evidence that people give disproportionally to causes that appeal to their emotions, ie sick kids, cute animals ect, than to the causes that are actually the most needy, which suggests a significant flaw in private charity.

This is not an intrinsic flaw with provide charity its simply something that happens because higher need causes are sufficiently looked after by the government. This is essentially what crowding out is all about. But you are also very presumptious here. You assume that the government is a good decision maker when it comes to this. Do you think that a university student living at home who has a part time job and a 4000 dollar grant from the university is entitled to 350 dollars a fortnight to have a 6 month holiday in Paris? And secondly, how do you define a good set of decisions? everyone is different. What makes my preference better than yours, or better than the donor that chooses to donate to the "James Packer Polo Tour Fund"? This is why donor soverignty is so important because its the best way to take into consideration the varying preferences within society.

In anycase if you do believe in central redistribution this need not be the government. United way charities is a private sector charity that has a 100% collection to expenditure rate (because they dont advertise or have ridiculous bureacratic costs) that fulfills this function.

Donor sovereignty still exists at election time.

No it doesn't because I didn't vote labor yet wayne swan just decided what to do with my money. Where is my donor soverignty?

K, not seing any evidence for these assertions though.

I hardly think these are contentious claims... Do you not think that there are disincentives in our tax and welfare system?

 

[gnrlies]

One of the biggest problems with charity is that even if you want to donate to achieve X outcome you don't know how much you personally need to donate in order to achieve it, you may assume that your neighbour will donate Y amount and therefore you donate less... but if everyone does this then you don't achieve X outcome. The oddest thing about the libertarian position on this is that they want people to choose how much they give to charity to increase their freedom, yet do any anti-welfare candidates ever get elected by the people? It would seem that other than some fringe minorities people have freely decided they want welfare to be provided through government systems.

I think you are missing the point when it comes to libertarianism. Libertarians are about 1000 choices for 1000 people. Not one choice for 1000 people. Individualism as opposed to collectivism. In many ways democracy is flawed for this reason (from a libertarian perspective) but most would argue that government is needed in order to define property rights and that a democratically elected government that can do this is better than any alternative (and subsequently they go down the small government route)

 

[Enteebee]

to be fair to the libertarians, they are not saying throw out democracy. they are saying they disagree with the choice the majority of people have made and thus trying to convince others to support reduced welfare and tax cuts.

A better criticism of libertarianism is:

"To demonise state authoritarianism while ignoring identical albeit contract-consecrated subservient arrangements in the large-scale corporations which control the world economy is fetishism at its worst."

I'm pretty sure what they're saying is that people shouldn't have the choice to decide to impose such regimes on other people, I disagree because I feel doing so leads to greater overall freedom. By not giving people the choice to impose social welfare on others we amplify an inequality with regard to the freedom different people have... I.e. If charity isn't as successful in providing education to poor families their children may not recieve a basic adequate education and thus have less choice in their life than they would having an education fairly level with their peers. This is a much greater 'freedom' injustice imo than forcing actors that already have a great deal of 'choice/freedom' in their lives to give up a little.

 

[Elpaulo]

I'm a member of the Shoalhaven branch (best darn branch in NSW lol)

Ah so good to know there are plenty of moderates out there- you guys have made my day!

 

[gnrlies]

Ok, if people overall give 20% of their income to charity (just assume this is true for now), then dollar for dollar, if the government reduces welfare and transfers this to consumers through tax cuts, the total amount of welfare + charitable donations WILL decrease by 80%. Agree/disagree?

Mathematically perhaps all other things being equal. But the point im making is that the overall transfer required would fall due to changing incentives (i.e. people would better look after themselves rather than relying on the state etc). So perhaps direct contributions to charity fall by 80%, but they are made up by payments that individuals make towards their own welfare (which is equivalent to charity, just that we wouldn't call it charity as they are self interested payments).

Ok, ur just talking shit now. You are misusing terms and just throwing buzzwords together in an ad-hoc fashion.

No I am not talking shit... Comparative statics is an important component of microeconomic analysis. Since you are the one that chose to take a microeconomic approach by converting your arguement into a formula; I am simply giving it the appropriate critique that it deserves. Just because you might not know what im talking about (maybe you do) doesn't mean that I'm talking shit.

Obviously I was refering to the total donations. Why would I bother to speculate aobut what particular individuals might do?

It is inconsequential what you were refering to. Its just that you kept insisting that I was misunderstanding you.

It's not semantics. It's a key reason why welfare is underprovided in an unregulated marketplace. The pursuit of self interest outweighs the desire for a warm fuzzy feeling.

Of course it is semantics. You dedicated an entire parapgraph complaining about my use of the word 'fallacy'. Anyway, I do not wish to get further sidetracked. The pursuit of self interest SHOULD be a powerful one, but you are quite mistaken here. If people were so self interested, and so cold hearted; why would so many people vote for political parties that redistribute income? and why is it that the people who usually vote for these parties are in fact the well to do? Also, why do so many people donate to charity already? The key is that there is a level of self interest in altruism (i.e. the warm fuzzy attached). I am simply arguing that governments are a poor governance structure to use when trying to achieve this.

Why is it the best way?

-Improves incentives
-Reduces the welfare state
-Allows markets to determine redistribution and not a central planner
-Allows donors to decide where their funds go which will increase donations
-Stops middle class welfare and 'churning'
-takes out the political element (porkbarreling)

Wow this one dubious example proves alot about private charity as a whole.

Please explain???

You don't get to personal decide how ever tax dollar is spent. That would be totally unworkable.

I don't accept your assertion that absolute consumer sovereignty is necessary anyway.

Still you havent answered my question... Where is my donor sovereignty??

I never asserted that donor sovereignty was necessary, simply that it was desireble. Obviously it is not necessary because the government forces people pay for things they dont want to do through taxation.

Yes, to a degree social welfare is a disincentive to work. But wouldn't private charity have the same effect. More importantly I think the disadvantages of much social welfare are outweighed by the advantages. We're better off with some welfare because certain people are unable to work or at times there is high unemployment. Not only is leaving these people to fend for themselves wrong, but it is detrimental to society as a whole because it motivates them to commit crimes, leave on the streets and reduces their chances of being employable in the future.

These are some big claims.... Private welfare wouldn't cause these same disincentives because they would only be given when absolutely needed, and individuals would be forced to take personal responsibility. As I said, I do think that govt's may still need to take a role, but only in fulfilling the gap between what the private sector is willing to provide (atm the govt crowds private charity out)

 

[gnrlies]

Sort of. It's confusing because as I understand it they accept democracy and thus would not advocate taking away people's right to choose such a regime. But they believe the regime chosen is not only ineffective but immoral becuase it limits individual freedom.

Actually you know there is a book that discusses this from a liberal perspective. I havent read it, but I've heard the author give a brief summary and it essentially says that within a classical liberal context you should allow non liberal regimes to form... But not having read it, I am unsure on what it has to say about people wanting to get out of such regimes. I believe there is a chapter on it..

The Liberal Archipelago: A Theory of Diversity and Freedom By Chandran Kukathas

 

[Enteebee]

Sort of. It's confusing because as I understand it they accept democracy and thus would not advocate taking away people's right to choose such a regime. But they believe the regime chosen is not only ineffective but immoral becuase it limits individual freedom.

It's one of the conundrums for the libertarian in that to enforce such 'freedom' on the people they need a dictator to restrict the freedom of the people from choosing not to be so free.

gnrlies: If it were shown to you that a non-libertarian approach (for example, in education) yields better results(even if for whatever reason you view it as deontologically unjust), would you accept it to be the preferred approach?