you don't need to be a cynic to argue that Patriotic Millionaires are the perfect example of virtue/status-signalling.
There is nothing stopping these individuals from making voluntary contributions to HMRC or equivalent in other countries. The real message is that they want to virtue signal and promote the coerceion of everyone else who has more than them so still lots of envy wrapped up in a cloak of false kindness.
Quite. I'm not generally a fan of the argument that people who want higher taxes should just voluntarily donate to HMRC, because the average Joe could quite reasonably say: "Well, that's not going to make a difference. It only works when everyone does it. One person in isolation can't move the needle."
But the case of multi-millionaires is very different, for two reasons.
Firstly, they are in a position to make much larger contributions than the average Joe. In their case, the argument that one person's contribution in isolation doesn't make a difference isn't true.
Secondly, multi-millionaires are a fairly small group. A small group can be organised on a voluntary basis, in the way that a large group, such as "the taxpayers", can't. Patriotic Millionaires could very easily set up a campaign where individual members pledge a certain amount of money, but only under the condition that a certain number of other members do the same. So let's say, you pledge to donate £100,000 to HMRC under the condition that at least 100 other millionaires do the same. If that doesn't happen, you don't have to do it. That's a way to overcome any coordination problems.
I see your point. However the starting point is not clear.
Taxation involves coercion and the use of force. So even if I am happy to pay whatever amount I have no authority to bind the entire population to that even if it is a majority view. Indeed if it is a majority view then why does one need coercion.
Interestingidea of voluntary action and making contingent pledges.
Sure, they *could* make voluntary donations to HMRC, but they could also work out what activity receives insufficient government handouts and then fund that directly themselves. We might have a slightly more productive economy as we've cut out the intermediary and the donors are going to care more about the outcomes than the bureaucrats.
One of the UK's strategic objectives should be to increase the pool of better paid and interesting jobs. We are living at a time when significant innovation is under way (eg AI, robotics, performance materials, life sciences etc). I would respect the Patriotic Millionaires if they invested in these new wealth creating businesses, rather than handing money to the Government, which has a record across all parties of wasting money rather than creating wealth.
The Patriotic Millionaires movement is a classic example of virtue signalling devoid of strategic thinking!
In my experience, rich people are sometimes a bit insecure socially. (He's well outside my experience, but Trump is an example.) They fear being thought snooty or inauthentic. So perhaps they'll flaunt their football fandom, to show their ordinariness. Alternatively, they might flaunt their profound sympathy for the working man.
you don't need to be a cynic to argue that Patriotic Millionaires are the perfect example of virtue/status-signalling.
There is nothing stopping these individuals from making voluntary contributions to HMRC or equivalent in other countries. The real message is that they want to virtue signal and promote the coerceion of everyone else who has more than them so still lots of envy wrapped up in a cloak of false kindness.
Quite. I'm not generally a fan of the argument that people who want higher taxes should just voluntarily donate to HMRC, because the average Joe could quite reasonably say: "Well, that's not going to make a difference. It only works when everyone does it. One person in isolation can't move the needle."
But the case of multi-millionaires is very different, for two reasons.
Firstly, they are in a position to make much larger contributions than the average Joe. In their case, the argument that one person's contribution in isolation doesn't make a difference isn't true.
Secondly, multi-millionaires are a fairly small group. A small group can be organised on a voluntary basis, in the way that a large group, such as "the taxpayers", can't. Patriotic Millionaires could very easily set up a campaign where individual members pledge a certain amount of money, but only under the condition that a certain number of other members do the same. So let's say, you pledge to donate £100,000 to HMRC under the condition that at least 100 other millionaires do the same. If that doesn't happen, you don't have to do it. That's a way to overcome any coordination problems.
I see your point. However the starting point is not clear.
Taxation involves coercion and the use of force. So even if I am happy to pay whatever amount I have no authority to bind the entire population to that even if it is a majority view. Indeed if it is a majority view then why does one need coercion.
Interestingidea of voluntary action and making contingent pledges.
I'm not sure that's the best argument against PM.
Sure, they *could* make voluntary donations to HMRC, but they could also work out what activity receives insufficient government handouts and then fund that directly themselves. We might have a slightly more productive economy as we've cut out the intermediary and the donors are going to care more about the outcomes than the bureaucrats.
Agreed. However PM are lobbying for more taxes not actually directly identifying and takling the issues that they believe needs additional support.
One of the UK's strategic objectives should be to increase the pool of better paid and interesting jobs. We are living at a time when significant innovation is under way (eg AI, robotics, performance materials, life sciences etc). I would respect the Patriotic Millionaires if they invested in these new wealth creating businesses, rather than handing money to the Government, which has a record across all parties of wasting money rather than creating wealth.
The Patriotic Millionaires movement is a classic example of virtue signalling devoid of strategic thinking!
In my experience, rich people are sometimes a bit insecure socially. (He's well outside my experience, but Trump is an example.) They fear being thought snooty or inauthentic. So perhaps they'll flaunt their football fandom, to show their ordinariness. Alternatively, they might flaunt their profound sympathy for the working man.