A social experiment - your view?

[poetryandwine]

Rafael Behr writes today in the Guardian about a social experiment that was new to me.

In a society, each person can contribute whatever % of their personal wealth they like to a common fund. No consultation between participants is allowed. After all contributions are made, the money in the fund will be trebled and distributed to all members of the society equally.

a. What % of your personal wealth would you contribute?

b. What % of personal wealth do you think current supporters of the various British political parties would contribute?

I am genuinely perplexed. I think my own answer depends on reading the room - the more others will contribute, the more I will contribute (and the better off we will all be). I do feel some obligation, perhaps to the tune of the 1- 2% wealth tax one hears about, to those who are struggling. So that might have to be my answer. It is sad to feel cynical.

My intuition is that the Greens, Labour, Lib Dems, SNP, etc are more likely to be generous but I could well be wrong.

It's one of those game theory type questions isn't it? If you have no idea what others will put in, you put nothing, no matter what political party you align with.

I think you would find people were extremely tight with their money.

I am genuinely perplexed. I think my own answer depends on reading the room

Er...
No consultation between participants is allowed.

Yes - this is why I am so perplexed and went with a low contribution.

PS - more generally, ‘reading the room’ in terms of the social zeitgeist better than I feel I can at present

As an individual, the sensible option os to donate nothing. Let everybody else contribute and then you get the benefit. But everyone thinks like that, nobody contributes anything, so nobody gets anything. The lack of communication allowed is what makes it a nonsensical, pointless thought experiment though. It places a completely articifical bound on things.

Game Theory at it's best. It is also predictable.

This is why it's not a great analogy for taxation and spending. In the game, everyone wants to maximise their personal return. In life, people have a range of motivations (not just personal return but also fairness etc) and also recognise that productive economies require things like an educated and healthy workforce.

I am well acquainted with game theory, thanks.

Nir communicating may serve several purposes. Two big ones are that it removes the possibility of betrayal and it attempts to get at an individual’s personal values.

Edit: Nir = Not

it is pretty much the same idea as Rawls with his veil of ignorance. If you don't know what your position will be in society, and you have to make decisions on your contributions based on that, you are more likely to put something in. You have no idea if you are a tech billionaire or a disabled single mother of 5.

In this one, you know your position (how many resources you have etc) so you can decide how you contribute.

In the Rawls example people tend to say they would make contributions and tend to more equality. In the 2nd there are various outcomes and not all paint humans in a good ligh.t

Wealth or income?

I would not give any wealth. I have hardly any and see no need to impoverish myself in old age. Income…nothing on top of the tax (34%) and donations I already pay.

What if I contribute but because I've held back enough for my needs I don't want anything from the contributed funds?

A fascinating question. Not part of the game.

Could you just give your proceeds to charity?

I don't think it is a good idea at all to encourage this type of thinking. We need far more clarity about where taxation (common spending) comes from and how it is allocated. This sort of exercise only promotes obfuscation.

If I was asked, I would contribute 10%
That's the amount the bible suggests as a tithe. And it always used to be the basic level of income tax. (I think its 20% now).
So for me, that feels like a fair amount.
When I've come into money (compo payout, bonus etc) I've usually donated 10% to charity.

It’s known a tragedy of the commons.

if something is owned together (in common) there are always people who want a free ride.

ao jn the days of villages having common land, everyone got their cows to go there and eat the grass because it was free. You literally got a free lunch (for your cows).

but in most societies there are customs in place to stop anyone turning up and using the common.

for example, only commoners of the new forest have the right to graze their ponies on the new forest and their ponies are tagged so everyone knows who they are. If you randomly turn up and start letting your ponies eat for free they’ll get caught and it’ll be known you aren’t allowed to do that.

in the same way, most human societies have some way of supporting the sick and injured and old. But it often relies on social custom and ostracising or at least shunning those who don’t pay their share or don’t look after their parents like they should.

this game, because of the no talking rule, means that people can’t punish those who are seen to not contribute enough. So people won’t contribute enough.

My intuition is that the Greens, Labour, Lib Dems, SNP, etc are more likely to be generous but I could well be wrong.

Lib Dems, possibly, but not the others.

Socialists like to be generous with other people's money. I'm not sure they are as generous with their own. Also, they don't want to be too generous, because a slightly impoverished, but grateful population is the easiest kind to control.

Is this a one off payment and who is responsible for trebling the money? Surely this would be highly inflationary. Maybe I have entirely missed the point.

I suspect if voluntary and secret the vast majority of people would contribute nothing whatever party they support.

This seems an utterly pointless thought experiment. What are you supposed to learn from it?

It's funny I was thinking something like this today. I heard they are rethinking compensation for waspi women. I fall in that category but refuse to say I'm a waspi woman. What will I do if they give me compensation? If it's close to £3k which was mentioned I think my kids and GC will get a bit extra for Christmas but some will go to a charity I support, well I support 3 monthly but I think I'd give it to the one that operates on children with cleft lip and palate. We are ok, not rich but ok and I feel so sorry for those children and the parents desperate for help for them.

Sorry off topic but it just fitted with what I was thinking about.

Is this instead of tax? Or is it as a one off thing?

Is it % of net wealth eg home equity + savings - debt (inc. mortgage)? If so, quite a lot of people have a negative net wealth once you factor in mortgage, so they can’t really give a % of that. Or is it just % of assets? Or is it % of cash that people have available to give, so doesn’t include things like their home?

England as become a social experiment for the government.

This really depends on what you can afford, surely. But if it's voluntary and the people are unknown then it's 0%, because I know for sure the rich ones are not risking their money and I'm not giving them any of mine if they're not contributing.

You cant even depend on this being people you know. It's like the opposite of the drinks kitty, everyone puts in £20 and everyone decides what they 'take out'. There's always some fucker ordering a cocktail or doubles, while others have half a larger.

It also depends how many people are in the group as the more people the thinner the money is spread, not to mention the idea that the Gov would triple peoples resources is nonsensical.