So for this "libertarian paternalist" viewpoint, is the goal of these plans to force people to do certain things, or make certain behaviors "default" in the sense that they are the status quo unless people voluntarily decide to do otherwise? Otherwise, I don't see how forced saving differs except in degree from the operations of the Fed or various tax provisions, or in fact wealth transfers that are otherwise market based, and I think many "libertarians" would object -- clarification?. Also, does anyone know of any research along the lines of changing the "default" behavior in an institution (not meaning psychological bias literature or survey data, but rather tweaking a scenario but not changing the info set or options available to actors and seeing different results -- I seem to remember a paper critiquing regret theory, but that is it). In other words, is there any empirical evidence in an actual institution with incentives that shows how behavior is altered by changing the "default" option affects behavior?

At 10:17 PM 6/30/2003 +0000, you wrote:

Who would manage these accounts? The person himself? If he is not competent enough not to save what makes you think they can invest?
Now the question is how much money do you give to the basic poverty
fund? If you make it to low then people will not get enough basic benefits . If you make it to high then you risk the problem of losing work incentive.

"Great news for me ... I'm a Libertarian Paternalist! I've long "what" I am, but just not the name.

I ESPECIALLY like the need of humans to direct money flow into
different accounts.  I support many gov't individual accounts:
a forced savings retirement account (SMART or whatever)--the second
pillar in 3-pillar pension reform schemes like Slovakia (first pillar
is poverty income to all, almost irrespective of contribution; third
pillar is optional tax-advantaged savings, like IRAs).

Health care & catastrophic insurance would be good, too.

I'd like an individual unemployment account; required to donate
until it reaches enough to pay you half your last year's salary (or
poverty income for year plus half the difference).

I'd like automatically elligible educational tax-loans, where you pay
back the loan by using some 50% of your tax payment; possibly plus a
5-10% surtax on income above poverty level.

The point is to make voters have their own accounts, so they are
mostly benefiting from their own money.  Only then, I believe, will
we be able to start making progress against the immorality of using
gov't violence in order to claim "other people's money".

And, maybe, even start reducing that corporate welfare that sucks up
so many tax resources.

NOT a libertarian socialist -- a paternalist.


now have a new address:

________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit to sign up today!

Reply via email to