Damn cheek! I teach my students to be sceptical of it. And of everything else too.
-----Original Message-----
From: "Uwe E. Reinhardt" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 19:06:50
To: [log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]>; [log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Tax code
Yes, with the exception of a few of us, most people are meshugge, as the Chinese put it.
Kahneman has lectured on it for years. Indeed, he even declares that people who believe in maximizing Von Neuman Morgenstern utility is a way to deal with uncertainty are meshugge. Of course, you and I don't believe in it. We merely teach it to students because we are paid to do it.
Uwe
Therein lies the paradox.
----- Original Message -----
From: Adam Oliver [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 01:53 PM
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Tax code
Uwe
I don't think what you suggest produces the paradox (although you might
be right - I'll have to think about it). I think framing produces the
paradox. This is worrying, because it might suggest that people's moral
outlooks depend upon relatively simple reframing of
questions/statements, something I have written about in the past.
Kahneman writes about it too in his new book, so I'm in good company.
Incidentally, all social scientists should read his book. It is a little
bit repetitive in places, but it will likely become a classic of its
type.
-----Original Message-----
From: Anglo-American Health Policy Network [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Uwe E. Reinhardt
Sent: 20 January 2012 18:18
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Tax code
I think most economists (all if they are sober) would agree that making
any item tax deductible -- whether it is deposits into a Health vSavings
Account or acquiring a human pet (a.k.a. " a child") is regressive under
a progressive income tax structure.
That most non-economists do not get it is well known. It creates this
seeming "paradox."
In the US at least many items are made tax deductible, e.g.
employer-paid health insurance premiums or deposits into a tax preferred
Health Savings Account.
There must be a religion which furnishes the ethical platform for such a
regressive deal. Would Jesus have supported it? What about Calvinism?
Here I do need help.
Uwe
----- Original Message -----
From: Adam Oliver [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 12:10 PM
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Tax code
The reason I asked the following question was because I was trying to
see how many people would fall for Schelling's old paradox. i.e. if you
ask:
If there were child exemptions in the tax code, such that a standard tax
exemption is allowed for each child, should the exemption be larger for
the rich than for the poor?
most people say no.
But if you ask:
Should the childless poor pay as large a surcharge as the childless
rich?
most people also say no.
The paradox is that you cannot logically reject both statements.
But no-one was interested, so it doesn't matter.
Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic
communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer
Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer
|