Study: Basic assumption on which conservatism rests collapses utterly
posted at 3:23 pm on June 14, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
I’m shocked.
And stunned.
Stunned.
Mr. Bingley on June 14, 2007 at 3:25 PM
What a crock! 19 Oregon female university students…..gee…..hug a tree tax, big-foot tax, no dolphin in tuna tax….hmmmmmmmmmmm?
Limerick on June 14, 2007 at 3:26 PM
Wait. So when I cursed my $40,000 tax bill in 2006, that was me expressing my joy and happiness?
lorien1973 on June 14, 2007 at 3:27 PM
Did they forget to mention that these ten students were brain dead? Oops!
serenity on June 14, 2007 at 3:28 PM
PS…I would love to pay “hypothetical” taxes!
serenity on June 14, 2007 at 3:29 PM
I hope our tax money didn’t fund that.
frankj on June 14, 2007 at 3:29 PM
$100 bucks to any college student is bound to set off some pleasure centers in the brain. Even if you take away $45, you’re still left with $55 more beer money than you had before this stupid study.
Here’s an idea, do a similar experiment on those same 19 in 20 years when they have been forced to live and work in the REAL WORLD!!! Watch those spikes disappear.
Asinine.
ej_pez on June 14, 2007 at 3:31 PM
Not if you don’t live in the State of Oregon. For those who do you are screeeeeeeeeewwwwwed.
Editor on June 14, 2007 at 3:32 PM
Bees can’t fly, either.
Theoretically.
profitsbeard on June 14, 2007 at 3:32 PM
I just got off the phone with the missus, who was very upset, since it was her turn to call the local tax goons and argue with them. No pleasure in that for either of us.
I love being shaken down for money to go to, in our case, a school to which we will not send our own children (no “Academic Watch” for us, thanks), or another friggin’ community art gallery (on a street which already has four, count ‘em, four art galleries), or a “Life Skills” center (for drop-outs of above-mentioned school system).
Someone around here gets a thrill out of paying taxes, though, ’cause they keep voting for ‘em.
saint kansas on June 14, 2007 at 3:33 PM
I enjoy not being hauled in for an audit and having my wages garnished for the next 30 years. It gives me a secret joy in my pleasure centers.
askheaves on June 14, 2007 at 3:33 PM
If you livd in New York City last year you were 18% happier than you were the year before…that was the amount of property tax increase…I laughed ’til I sobbed !
DoctorDentons on June 14, 2007 at 3:34 PM
And I hurt like the devil when I have to write that check to the IRS. I must be a masochist.
Ellen on June 14, 2007 at 3:34 PM
He’s basing this on the fact that he generally likes taking it up the arse more than he admits.
Editor on June 14, 2007 at 3:34 PM
You can’t build real-world theses on studies conducted with play money. It’s just like everyone you know who has day-traded with fake money. When you’re putting cold, hard cas on the line, it’s a different game…period.
windbag on June 14, 2007 at 3:34 PM
Mr. Bill Harbaugh, the guy doing this experiment needs to compare the amount of satisfaction registered by paying taxes to say…. buying a brand new car, or making a house payment, or paying for a new set of golf clubs. Then I think he will find that paying taxes is actually on the low end of the scale of human satisfaction.
Maxx on June 14, 2007 at 3:35 PM
Key word there was women.
I kid! I kid! mostly… ;)
bj1126 on June 14, 2007 at 3:35 PM
My brain does a total nuclear meltdown over the shamnesty bill.
I don’t buy the results of this study. I think the positive brain activity is due to not being the people in the scenario.
moonsbreath on June 14, 2007 at 3:36 PM
As a U of O grad – twice (BA in ‘83, JD in ‘89) – I’d say Limerick’s onto something.
Aside from using denizens of “The Berkeley of the Northwest” as its lab rats, there are multiple reasons to question why they even bothered with this “study.”
- Why were no men included? Forget about a representative sample, unless we’re trying to figure out the social policies of Amazonia or investigating beehive or anthill behavior by extrapolation.
- OK, so we see that 19 U of Zero gals feel good giving away money that they didn’t earn, but was given to them. Next question for the ladies: “Now, let’s take $100 of your own money and see how enthusiastic you are to part with a chunk of it ‘for the greater good.’” Maybe that’s for Phase II of the study?
Interestingly, if one reads the whole article, it explains one aspect of the red/blue divide: the “pleasure sensation” was greater for charitable giving than for compulsory giving. As I recall, red state populations have a significantly higher rate of charitable contribution than blue state ones. Now, that’s worth a grant proposal.
Spurius Ligustinus on June 14, 2007 at 3:37 PM
Have any of the subjects ever even filled out a 1040EZ?
Does the threat of Federal prison help explain it even a little?
Coyote D. on June 14, 2007 at 3:39 PM
Completely meaningless!
SSG Fuzzy on June 14, 2007 at 3:40 PM
That’s just it. They’ve been given $55 that they didn’t have to earn.
I think they should redo the study, except this time make the people do work for $100 knowing that they will be taxed at a randomly selected rate up to $45, then hook them up to the machines as they open their paychecks and see how their brains light up.
dead-duck on June 14, 2007 at 3:43 PM
I think its also very telling about the state of “science” today that this type of “study” would pass for “science” The article is from “NewScientist.com news service” May I suggest a name change to “NewJUNKScientist.com news service”
Maxx on June 14, 2007 at 3:44 PM
Exactly. There’s a big difference in taxing income that isn’t yours and having to cough up your own cash.
I’m sure the study is right in concluding that people enjoy taxing other people’s money. It’s what the Democrat Party gets off on.
Esthier on June 14, 2007 at 3:45 PM
That was likely just an orgasm. Not surprising you failed to realize it, really; Conservatives are notoriously repressed, you know.
Blacklake on June 14, 2007 at 3:46 PM
The study also discovered that women feel searing pain when thinking about purchasing shoes……..
doriangrey on June 14, 2007 at 3:47 PM
Paying taxes feels good, say researchers.
So does taking a shit. Interestingly enough both produce waste and are accompanied by the sound of a toilet flushing…
soulsirkus on June 14, 2007 at 3:48 PM
Look, a study like this makes sense. When you do something ‘good’ for other people, you ‘feel’ positive feedback. You just have to put this study in context: if you believe that government does good deeds with the money it receives (which is a common thought among liberals and the college-aged) you would feel positive feedback. The reality of the situation is that a lot of people out-source taking care of each other, and the most popular way to do that is through a government program.
But heck, I don’t mind paying taxes to support our national security. I just don’t want to pay taxes to support Murtha’s constituency and the evidence clearly shows that economy is stronger when more money remains in the private sector, so conservative is a mental decision.
Spirit of 1776 on June 14, 2007 at 3:48 PM
I agree w/ all the other context-establishing statements made by others too, btw.
Spirit of 1776 on June 14, 2007 at 3:50 PM
It also feels better to “Pay taxes” than it does to say… “go to jail.”
Maxx on June 14, 2007 at 3:53 PM
I concur that the highlighted bits are the telling part:
This study demonstrates, at best, that radical leftist women enjoy paying taxes. That speaks only to the notion that people enjoy engaging in activities that adhere to, or possibly reinforce, pre-existing personal beliefs.
Blacklake on June 14, 2007 at 3:54 PM
My first thought is going to echo what I see already. How about doing a study where the participants are all working and living on their own money now. Take that same paycheck and have them give money to the government that could be used to pay for their kids’ braces or buy groceries.
We don’t know the backgrounds of any of these girls, whether or not they worked their way into college or whether they are on scholarships or the bank ‘o dad.
“Empirical Evidence” has certainly changed meaning since my days in school.
Tennman on June 14, 2007 at 3:54 PM
Ah, State funded higher education. I’d put $100 (of someone else’s money) down that Mr. Bill Harbaugh is tenured, too.
common sensineer on June 14, 2007 at 3:55 PM
My kid used to believe in that crap until he had to start earning money to support himself. Then he cried like a baby with a rash and full diapers.
Wade on June 14, 2007 at 3:57 PM
Bill Harbaugh at the University of Oregon == F*cking moron!
georgej on June 14, 2007 at 3:58 PM
I would also have happy scans if someone gave me $100. However, if these people had actually earned the $100, I bet they would not have been as happy to give up 45%.
jeffNWV on June 14, 2007 at 3:59 PM
Fresh off of their appearance on Jay Lenos Battle of the Jaywalking All Stars.
LakeRuins on June 14, 2007 at 4:00 PM
Talk about flawed, GIVE them $100 and then pay taxes with it?
Big whoop it’s no different than being GIVEN $55 to begin with.
Which commie set up this bonehead scheme?
Have the students work all day and then tell them to give up 45% the result won’t be so positive even at 19.
Do this same (more accurate) test on young parents and you better be wearing Kevlar undies when you tell them to give the money.
Speakup on June 14, 2007 at 4:00 PM
I was kinda down last week when I visited Dr. Melfi. She said I needed something to make me feel good and suggested I could either pay taxes or get a hemorrhoid operation.
Wade on June 14, 2007 at 4:01 PM
poo
Sammy316 on June 14, 2007 at 4:03 PM
¡una qué herramienta!
robman27 on June 14, 2007 at 4:03 PM
“Bill Harbaugh at the University of Oregon in Eugene, US, and colleagues gave 19 female university students $100, and told them some of this money would have to go towards taxes.”
No worries, Allah; keep you’re chin up! This is not the destruction of conservatism, it’s actually just the definition of liberalism!
Glass is half full, and all that…
Jaibones on June 14, 2007 at 4:04 PM
Easy- it wasn’t their money they were paying. If they had to work for the money they might feel more attached to it. And college students don’t have any concept of what life costs, and how every dollar counts.
Scotsman on June 14, 2007 at 4:04 PM
I’m thinking that those researchers should have donated their tax cut savings under Bush to charity instead of spending it on crack.
MarkM on June 14, 2007 at 4:07 PM
You are looking at this ALL WRONG, AllahPundit. This says NOTHING about taxes, and provides us with the strongest evidence yet that Ann Coulter is exactly correct, viz. “women should not be allowed to vote.”
My collie says:
CyberCipher on June 14, 2007 at 4:07 PM
Look, it’s a University Study – so that pretty much settles the matter, moral-authority-wise.
Where this is going is that if you’re so stupid as to complain about paying your fair share of taxes, that will make you a societal prevert, and you’ll need to be sent to one of the Shared Prosperity Education Camps that President Clinton will soon establish. You will be allowed to to leave as soon as you demonstrate just how much joy sharing your prosperity with others has brought you.
eeyore on June 14, 2007 at 4:13 PM
Everyone who pointed out that the money was given and not earned hit the nail on the head.
thebrokenchair on June 14, 2007 at 4:14 PM
I know, seriously. I don’t even know where to begin with this most idiotic of “studies”. By the way, did they ever consider the happiness shown was response to the fact that they finally had a burden lifted off their shoulders when they paid the taxes? I don’t know anyone who’s pissed after they pay, it’s up until they pay that they stress out. Oh yeah, NONE OF THAT MATTERS BECAUSE THESE STUDENTS (WHO KNOW JACK ABOUT PAYING TAXES IN THE REAL WORLD) WERE GIVEN THE MONEY (A TINY AMOUNT BY THE WAY) IN THE FIRST PLACE, AND KNEW THE SITUATION WASN’T REAL!!!
RightWinged on June 14, 2007 at 4:15 PM
Justice Holmes is having a major O in his grave.
Me, my head hurts.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on June 14, 2007 at 4:21 PM
I’ll feel great about paying my taxes when a scientist gives me enough to cover my tax bill and have a little extra besides. Sure it feels good, it’s not my money! Damn, I can take someone else’s money and donate it too? Makes me feel almost …..liberal.
conservativecaveman on June 14, 2007 at 4:21 PM
It is after all Oregon, where assisted suicide is allowed.
Taxes and death. Goes to reason.
Don’t quit Allah, they read the fMRI wrong.
Kini on June 14, 2007 at 4:22 PM
Huh. UofO is the liberal university in Oregon (closely followed by the rest, but it has a longer history of it). Which means that the girls were probably liberals.
Then you give them someone else’s money and tell them to spend it…even if you call it taxes, spending other people’s money is the wet dream/orgasm for liberals, of course they enjoyed it!
jeffshultz on June 14, 2007 at 4:23 PM
19 Oregon female university students pay a theoretical $45, have an orgasm, and there is not bias built in… right?
How about taking from them something they earned?
Besides… taxation isn’t a personal issue, it’s about the dynamics of the market economy. Even if the orgasm index went off the chart the Laffer Curve still demonstrates that there is a point beyond which tax rates return less revenue.
So although rates that are too low result in insufficient reinvestment into social infrastructure, rates that are too high result in innefficient tax avoidance schemes and both reduced tax collections and the same limits to economic growth.
Put that in your bong and smoke it…
DANEgerus on June 14, 2007 at 4:24 PM
(cough)communistpropaganda(cough)
CP on June 14, 2007 at 4:27 PM
So let us keep our money and we’ll give it where it makes us feel the most good.
Hening on June 14, 2007 at 4:29 PM
AAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHH!!
&^$%#^$#%&#(^%&#&!!!
Enrique on June 14, 2007 at 4:33 PM
Better yet, go grab 19 working joes and janes off of the street and do the study on them.
Compare studies.
Conclude that people who get something for nothing are happy.
Apply to gov’t for more grant money.
BacaDog on June 14, 2007 at 4:35 PM
You’re overthinking things here.
The study was actually a study of masochism. In that case, everything fits. These people derived pleasure from the pain of paying taxes.
lawhawk on June 14, 2007 at 4:40 PM
Makes sense to me. Most people are decent. They like to feel like their contributing to the common good. That’s what society and government are there for.
Avoidance of taxes is not the cornerstone of conservatism. Rather, conservatives simply care that their earnings – their work – is used efficiently and effectively.
We don’t like taxes because we know that, in most cases, we’d use the money more efficiently. Less stupidly. Conversely, if I could know for a fact that every penny was going to an effective purpose, why would I mind?
Its not taxes thats the problem. It’s the people spending my money. It’s the fact that I fund abortion clinics, and benefits for illegal criminals, and offensive artwork, and bloated government projects that do absolutely nothing.
If they took my money, and used it to seal the border, end illegal immigration, secure the homeland, really decrease poverty, really boost employment, really fix health care, and really destroy terrorists all over the world … i’d probably send them a Christmas bonus for doing good with my money.
If I knew for a fact my taxes were going to buy bullets for an invasion of Iran and Syria, I’d pay double. And put little smiley faces on the check. But I’m a “mongererererer.”
Professor Blather on June 14, 2007 at 4:42 PM
Funniest comment in the thread.
Cuz you know its probably true.
Professor Blather on June 14, 2007 at 4:43 PM
To sum up:
(1) Students know very little about the financial stress caused by excessive taxation.
(2) There is nothing in the article to suggest that students had bigger “braingasms” about bigger taxation amounts, which would just mean that people like paying some taxes. This makes sense… not even the staunchest libertarian thinks that there should be NO taxes. So the people who read the “$0 tax” item probably felt like they were cheating.
(3) It wasn’t money they earned. No matter what, they were getting free cash.
(4) Some people believe that it’s a good thing for our government to have more money to spend. Okay, most people.
(5) The fact that charity feels better than a government mugging actually favors less taxation, as it cuts against the argument that “less tax = culture of greed”
(6) They were all female. Females have more empathy. That hugely skews these results. Females are also more likely to trust the government.
(7) They were all from the same geographic area. Oregon is practically Canada in terms of politics.
(8) 19 is the sample size? Really?
Mark Jaquith on June 14, 2007 at 4:54 PM
So, let me get this straight…
19 females (usually libs anyway), who are in university (and haven’t experienced the true JOY of paying taxes), consider some tax plans and scientists get some blips and this is a study? Maybe they only got blips looking at the low-payment tax plans. Maybe we’ve developed a coping mechanism so we don’t cry on April 15th.
However, I think maybe the study with such a restricted sample set, and with such confines, isn’t enough to draw a conclusion from? How about getting a bunch of taxpayers in a room and talk to them about not having to pay taxes any more and get THEIR brain scans!
linlithgow on June 14, 2007 at 5:00 PM
I should have said I am a female; just lucky to have been blessed with more sense than most women. ;-)
linlithgow on June 14, 2007 at 5:02 PM
Hypothetical is always easier when someone else is paying the real bill.
Lawrence on June 14, 2007 at 5:04 PM
since when do scientific studies involve 19 people of the same sex from the same city?
j_ehman on June 14, 2007 at 5:08 PM
I’m a small business accountant preparing tax returns for about 200 clients and can assure you than none of them, liberals included, have ever expressed any happiness over the fact that they owe taxes. As a matter of fact, the more liberal they are, the more unhappy they are.
Ann on June 14, 2007 at 5:08 PM
excellent analogy.
I wonder why that is – considering their “share the wealth” mentality. I guess as long as it’s not their wealth they have to share…
pullingmyhairout on June 14, 2007 at 5:19 PM
I feel 45% more stupid after reading about that “study.” Me can’t afford that.
Kensington on June 14, 2007 at 5:23 PM
19 female college students, yeah that’s a representative sample of typical thinking. Especially since it’s highly unlikely any of them have filled out anything but the short form.
Well, I’m going to go out and see what happens when I offer $100 to a female college student …
doufree on June 14, 2007 at 5:30 PM
When did scientists/researchers get SO stupid.
The thing they are responding to is the uncertainty. When you say “here’s $100, but I’m gonna take some back” – the brain responds to the uncertainty, the unknown.
Upon reading the rules and boundaries, the “positive” response is from the sense of relief.
What people “dread” about taxes is the uncertainty of what they will have to pay each year.
This sounds like proof of the value of a flat tax to me.
Agrippa2k on June 14, 2007 at 5:39 PM
What I took away from the report. Oregon has some really stupid hookers. If they were blonde it would just cap this whole thing off.
LakeRuins on June 14, 2007 at 5:46 PM
Obviously, the experiment was flawed. Let’s try the Tantor version:
Hire fifty college girls to shovel shit on a hot day for eight long hours.
Pay them each a hundred bucks at the end of the day.
Ask them how much of that they want to contribute to the government.
Tantor on June 14, 2007 at 6:12 PM
In other news:
There is about to be a Waco/RubyRidge stand-off.
Personally, I hope if it comes to shooting, that they kill a bunch of Federal Agents.
For anyone who thinks that if offensive, remind yourself how many times you have said, “If they ban guns, they’ll take them from me by force.” The only difference is that these guys are standing up for their private property and income, not just their guns.
Tim Burton on June 14, 2007 at 6:37 PM
Flash! This just in!
I have confirmation of the study. I polled every customer at our local Starbucks who was a) female, b) had a post in her nose, c) didn’t tell me to go “eF myself you breeder”…
And I can confirm the results of the study that, if I offered to give them $100 they would still feel good about it, even if they had to give away $45 of that gift, provided it wasn’t to fund the military-industrial-complex.
In fact… most said they would feel ‘good’ about giving away the $45 of the $100 I just gave them.
I was shocked.
DANEgerus on June 14, 2007 at 6:41 PM
This is a media “salting” story. Now until doomsday, we’ll be treated to the favorite Left opener: “Experts say …”
naliaka on June 14, 2007 at 7:00 PM
So the tears I shed every April 15 are tears of joy? What’s next? Buying bridges in Brooklyn is considered sound real estate advice?
I’ll admit if I donate money to a worthwhile cause of my choosing I get a warm fuzzy – just like the warm fuzzy I get when my tax bill is cut.
Thanks, AP. I’m in a bad mood now.
looking4statesmen on June 14, 2007 at 7:16 PM
Tantor on June 14, 2007 at 6:12 PM
Exactly right, it matters nothing that people wouldn’t mind giving away part of their “found” money, it does matter that people don’t want to part with money they worked hard for.
It is a flawed study and I agree it’s the media salting the public opinion in preparation for the DEMs upcoming social experiment in global redistribution of wealth.
“Tax the rich, feed the poor, till there are no rich no more”. Listen carefully to the DEM overlords folks, get that money offshore and protected or you won’t have it long come 2008.
Buzzy on June 14, 2007 at 7:28 PM
I feel a certain amount of pleasure in filing my taxes, but it’s mostly because I see it as a personal test of honesty.
Because I hate the damn things (taxes).
I think there is a certain amount of pleasure many people receive from “doing their part”. Makes sense to me.
Otherwise, how could society ever organize a war? Our finest are on the battlefield partly to test themselves, but also in huge measure to protect us.
That is why I don’t put much stock in “Ayn Rand smoking’s cool abortion’s groovy” ideas, although she’s right on capitalism.
Mostly. But not pure capitalism. Anethema to her, a mixed economy weighted heavily toward free markets functions best.
Where I call BS on this study is conservatives dislike taxes most, but also donate far and away more money than liberals. But the authors say the two behaviors are closely linked.
This makes me question their data, methadology, and/or conclusions.
Christoph on June 14, 2007 at 7:47 PM
What if they were told that their money would fund a gigantic bridge in Alaska that nobody would ever use?
WisCon on June 14, 2007 at 8:28 PM
Bill Harbaugh at the University of Oregon in Eugene, US, and colleagues gave 19 female university students $100, and told them some of this money would have to go towards taxes.
Each volunteer then read a series of 60 separate taxation scenarios involving $0 to $45 in taxes, knowing that one of the scenarios would be selected at random and the related amount be subtracted from their $100.
3 Immeadiate Problems:
1) College students
2) Only 19??!!!!WTF is that for study???
3) College Students
No doubt the “tax” scenarios had to do with a social program that would include tuition and student loans.
What a huge pile of bull****.
auspatriotman on June 14, 2007 at 10:01 PM
12 million illegal aliens disagree.
infidel4life on June 14, 2007 at 10:14 PM
My reaction exactly.
Dude, we have never been below that rate–or at least since long before FDR was around.
urbancenturion on June 15, 2007 at 12:00 AM
Um, these dippy chicks had no problem “giving” in taxes because IT WASN’T THEIR MONEY IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!
This “study” is a crock.
Warner Todd Huston on June 15, 2007 at 12:16 AM
Since everyone is voting their favorite of the thread… here’s mine.
Maxx on June 15, 2007 at 9:33 AM
Wait, if I offer $100 to a college girl she’ll be more inclined to charity?
Um… I’ll be back later, this sounds promising.
gekkobear on June 15, 2007 at 12:12 PM
What if they gave 5 of the girls $100 dollars
and 14 of them nothing,
but told the first 5 they would be taxed $45
that would then be given to the rest of the girls?
Then you got some fireworks!
BobH on June 15, 2007 at 7:17 PM
Even better,
What if you gave them all $100 and told them they would not be taxed at all?
Then what would their pleasure levels be in comparison?
BobH on June 15, 2007 at 7:18 PM
Comment pages: