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.

I’d contribute about 0.01% because I’m just trying to survive. I don’t have money to generously put into an experiment.

Did they actually use the word wealth or is that your word?

Yes, it’s a pretty silly experiment.

He has pinched this from John Rawles.

Anyone saying they would pay more than they already do in tax, just to be nice (?) already has the option to do so, via charitable giving or extra tax contributions. Anyone giving with the expectation that they will get more than they give is effectively gambling.

It would depend very much on how much wealth I had. If I could live comfortably once giving away a certain amount.

At the moment I'd probably say 20% as I could afford to do that and still pay bills, buy food and have a little bit left but no real savings.

There was a time when even 2% would have meant something not getting paid so I wouldn't expect people worse off to give the same amount.

If I had more I'd probably up to 50% as long as i could still pay bills... being selfish I'm not sure I'd ever give more than 50% unless in the serious millionaire category.

Would you not say 20% as that’s the lowest rate of tax?

Interesting.

I also like the concept of tithing. I am trying to work up to 5-10% giving after tax. It is a bit scary, though.

I think it is getting at altruism.

Edit: getting at beliefs about altruism and self interest

30% was the figure that jumped into my head once I read the OP. I've not read the other replies yet (the no conferring bit).

Going to read them after I post this.

Plenty of better off people will put in. What makes you say otherwise? Oh, I know there are also plenty who will not! But generalising isn’t right.

I do like your analogy with the drinks kitty. I remember one of my first academic conferences; I was still a PG and it was in the UK. Out to a pub dinner with a fellow PG and a bunch of academics. The FRS in our group, who I am sure was the best paid member of the party, carefully totted up the cost of his food and left exactly that amount. He had bought no rounds and left no contribution to the tip. I suppose he would have said others had made free choices to spend their money on him and the waitstaff.

I sometimes feel this is a metaphor the way the middle class is going. Of course not having money is something else entirely.

Like all these scenarios, the boring but true answer is always: it depends. If I had plenty of money to cover all the basics for my own life and the lives of my closest loved ones, then I'd be playing with fun money and might be very generous. i'd only offer what I could happily afford to lose, without expectation of gain - like lending money to a broke friend who you know won't pay it back.

But if I were struggling to pay bills, or knew my family members were, I would put in almost nothing and instead use the money where I knew it was needed.

Eleanor Ostrem, the Nobel prize winning economist, debunked the tragedy of the commons myth. It sounds plausible it would work like that, but she produced countless examples to show that in reality it doesn't.

This is a version of the Trust Game. It is more commonly played with 2 people. If you get repeated rounds, the optimal solution is to put lots of money in and get lots back. But people don’t always do that.

also, most lab versions start with everyone having equal wealth. In the “whole nation” version, the wealth is very unequal to start with.

This is all pretty much covered in Freakonomics.

Thanks, @SerendipityJane

It is still interesting to wonder what individuals would do.

I agree collaborating with a trusted network of reasonable size makes it easier to take a risk.

Currently my wages don't cover our outgoings therefore putting anything in would cause us financial issues. So I don't know.

Maybe of more interest is my initial reaction, which was that of course I'd put money in, followed by second thoughts after reading everyone's comments that most people wouldn't put anything in...

Would collaborating with a trusted network, if you had the money, make it easier for you? If I thought everyone in the society was sincerely planning to participate (accepting that people with no positive net wealth cannot) I would commit about 10%, hoping for a return of 15% or at least to break even.

If almost everyone with net wealth participates and I get less, at least the chances are that my money has gone to people who really need it. That helps.

Yes, if it was a trusted network I'd be likely to take more of a risk.

It is a thought experiment, assessing attitudes to altruism and equality. The money is trebled by magic.

I’ve clarified to myself that in this scenario I would like some return (in the real world at this time of life I am looking at the NHS) but if I was convinced that most people with positive net wealth were contributing as they felt they comfortably could, I would be very happy getting back 1.5 x my contribution and okay with less.

However at this point I don’t have that kind of confidence. It’s been interesting!

It's been a while since I read Freakonomics, but this game is similar to the world of keeping promises in Moral Philosophy. It only works if everyone keeps their promises, otherwise it will end up with no promises being trusted, leading to the disappearance of a world with promises.

Given that we are now talking about money, even with an equal amount of money, people are not the same. Some will have the capability to generate more wealth, but as they put increasingly larger amounts in the pot, there will come a point when they will question why they are contributing so much when they don't gain anything more from their harder efforts.

This is where the term "all things being equal" comes in. Unfortunately in the real world, all things are not equal, so it ends up as an unrealistic mind game about altruism and justice.