What a ridiculous argument. "You say you support US fighting in Syria, but you haven't personally intervened by purchasing a gun and plane ticket!"

"I want to pay more taxes" is obviously a stand-in for "tax rates should be higher", not because we love taxes, but because they help us achieve national priorities. Individual action doesn't do that, which is precisely why they're national priorities.

Every dollar you pay can potentially help people. I don't disagree. BUT: you're blatantly ignoring the massive amounts of money that are being wasted by government (and I'm not talking about good universal healthcare and decent pensions here)

It's all great in theory, but every single developed country wastes billions in taxpayers money every year on all sorts of irrelevant things. Politician pet projects. Projects going massively wrong and overrunning in cost at inflated prices. Inefficiencies. Etc..

I'd rather donate a healthy amount of money to a nonprofit of my choice (and yes, take the tax deduction for doing that -- can donate almost twice as much!). Those charities generally will be able to allocate said resources much more efficiently.

I think it's possible for an additional tax dollar to help people, for sure. But it seems unreasonable to assume that a positive tax revenue delta will manifest in useful or well-managed social programs. Additional money in the public coffers is a necessary precondition for expanded social programs of value, but there are still problems of management, possibilities that the money will be spent on unjustified wars, etc.

OK. I'm a hypocrite. I do vote for higher taxes on myself and others. So I guess the last sentence you wrote isn't entirely correct.

You do realize that people do seemingly contradictory things, right? And sometimes have overtly contradictory beliefs relative to their actions. As Saint Paul referenced; the thorn in his side.

My beliefs versus my actions in this instance is an aspect of the free rider problem. Look it up.

I'm aware of the free rider problem. I'm willing to bet, by the way, that the author of the article does pay a lot more in taxes than he thinks. People often speak as if effective tax rate were the net amount. That's something to think about in the context of free riders.

If you are aware of the free rider problem then you oughtn't be unaware that people can believe that something should be done but won't do it if they aren't forced to.

Why give it through a middle man (government) if you can donate it directly to the hungry mouths? It’s not like there’s a 2:1 match on your taxes. At best it flows through 1:1 and that’s at best.

I choose to live in a society and I want to live in a society that maintains a certain level of humanity. To run this enterprise that we call society requires a government (I do not at all agree with anarchism). That government requires money to run. Hence the need for taxes and right now taxes in the U.S. are low relative to the last 50 years.

I don't know anyone who is hungry so I can't directly give food to the hungry. One can seek out an organization to provides food for the hungry. I believe that the organization best suited to do this government. Besides, there is more to the proper running of a society than just feeding hungry people.

We need roads, sewers, clean water, a legal system, police, teachers, etc. The umbrella organization that we give money to in order to provide these things is the government.

> One can seek out an organization to provides food for the hungry. I believe that the organization best suited to do this government.

Empirically speaking, government is one of the least suited and efficient organizations to do this [1].

“[Government] income redistribution agencies are estimated to absorb about two-thirds of each dollar budgeted to them in overhead costs, and in some cases as much as three-quarters of each dollar. Using government data, Robert L. Woodson (1989, p. 63) calculated that, on average, 70 cents of each dollar budgeted for government assistance goes not to the poor, but to the members of the welfare bureaucracy and others serving the poor. Michael Tanner (1996, p. 136 n. 18) cites regional studies supporting this 70/30 split.

“In contrast, administrative and other operating costs in private charities absorb, on average, only one-third or less of each dollar donated, leaving the other two-thirds (or more) to be delivered to recipients. Charity Navigator, www.charitynavigator.org the newest of several private sector organizations that rate charities by various criteria and supply that information to the public on their web sites, found that, as of 2004, 70 percent of charities they rated spent at least 75 percent of their budgets on the programs and services they exist to provide, and 90 percent spent at least 65 percent. The median administrative expense among all charities in their sample was only 10.3 percent.”

[1] http://mises.org/journals/jls/21_2/21_2_1.pdf

Widespread undernourishment and hunger was not defeated by charity. It was defeated by government. Widespread access to clean water was not accomplished by charity. It was accomplished by government. Widespread access to education was not accomplished by charity. It was accomplished by government. Widespread access to medical care for poor children was not accomplished by charity. It was accomplished by government.

Thus it is safe to say that government is much more efficient at accomplishing these goals than charity. Charity is much more efficient at the margins. It’s great for the fringe cases once the majority of the problem has been addressed.