« Arthur Brooks selected to be president of AEI | Main | Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Peso Problem »
Some simple Ricardian thoughts on the Helmsley bequest for dogs
Here is Posner on the topic, here is Becker. As I understand the terms, it is about $12 million for her dog and $5 billion to $8 billion for dogs in general.
It's only the $12 million for her dog that is objectionable; surely one million would have sufficed and in the language of the philosophic literature on inequality, the other dogs can rightfully hold a complaint against the recipient of Helmsley's largesse.
$5 billion to $8 billion for dogs in general is not too much for our wealthy society to spend or to regard as a legitimate welfare objective, worthy of the standard tax deduction, at least provided it is distributed equitably. Here's a list of possible ways to spend the money to help dogs. Here's an estimate that there are more than 70 million dogs in the United States, so that is on average only $100 per dog. Do note that while not every dog needs help, helping even a single dog requires considerable infrastructure. If you think that's too much aid, well, let crowding out operate and cut back on your transfers to dogs. There's plenty of room for give there, believe me, since more than 40 million households own dogs and thus have their finger on this trigger, maybe yours too (not mine). It is we who control the net transfer from humans to dogs, not the dear departed Ms. Helmsley.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on July 15, 2008 at 06:56 AM in Current Affairs | Permalink
Comments
Does this "literature" on complaints basically say that if it's large, you can complain about it?
Posted by: Jim at Jul 15, 2008 8:14:33 AM
Given she was an old bitch, it makes perfect sense.
Everyone human hated her and she knew it, and no amount would buy her way to heaven, so why not the pooches.
Posted by: James at Jul 15, 2008 8:43:02 AM
If I die before my dog, a Yorkie, people would fight over who got to take care of him - with no money attached. Maybe no one liked Ms. Helmsley's dog....
I used to be a "big dog" guy (my favorite breed is still the German Shepherd), but Yorkies and many other small dogs are much easier to care for if you don't have a large yard.
"In some countries, apart from being kept as pets, certain breeds of dogs are raised on farms and slaughtered for their meat."
Dog Meat - from Wikipedia
Also see the Croc-Eat-Dog Dogsuit - wonder if this comes in Yorkie size. I know the Dogzilla costume looks great on mine!
Posted by: chug at Jul 15, 2008 9:01:06 AM
I was under the impression that the 12 million for her own dog had been reduced to 2 million with the other 10 going to some grandchildren who had been cut out of the will. (The idea was that she wasn't in her right mind when she made the will. I suspect, but don't know, that the fact that she gave 12 million to a dog was a strong bit of evidence.) This was in the NY Times a week or two ago.
As for the rest of the money, I think it should be used to make the "Dog Island" idea, which sadly turned out to be fake, into a reality.
Posted by: matt at Jul 15, 2008 9:16:56 AM
I am sorry but I would rather see all dogs die than one human. Human rights are our heritage as children of humans. If a pet dog gets old and does give pleasure one should put it to sleep. But it was her money to do as see pleased.
Posted by: Floccina at Jul 15, 2008 9:29:31 AM
The $12m for the dog is a temporary measure. Unless the dog is the CEO of an internet company, the money will largely go unused during its lifetime, and the unused portion will go elsewhere after its death. If anyone knows where the money will go after the dog's death I would be interested to hear it.
Posted by: Harvey M at Jul 15, 2008 9:36:13 AM
The disposition of Helmsley's money seems to be fairly controversial and I'm not sure why. Surely there are enough deserving animal shelters, etc., that this money will not go to waste. As for redirecting the money to her grandchildren--she clearly wanted to screw them. Perhaps it's unfortunate for them, but what did they do to deserve the money anyway?
Posted by: Thelonious_Nick at Jul 15, 2008 12:32:15 PM
Most pledges on Fundable.org - a website implementing assurance contracts for the provision of public goods - seem to be for dog vet bills, rather than national defense, lighthouses or streetlights (which are the canonical examples of public goods in the econ literature). In my view, this is quite impressive evidence that promoting the welfare of our pets should be regarded as serving the common good.
Posted by: anon at Jul 15, 2008 2:05:09 PM
Nice point, Tyler. Tax free dollars for dogs will crowd out taxed dollars for dogs.
Me, I reckon if dogs get rich they should pay taxes like any other non-voter who strikes it lucky. Sure, they are often child substitutes, but rich children pay tax.
Posted by: Diversity at Jul 15, 2008 3:12:49 PM
Nice point, Tyler. Tax free dollars for dogs will crowd out taxed dollars for dogs.
Me, I reckon if dogs get rich they should pay taxes like any other non-voter who strikes it lucky. Sure, they are often child substitutes, but rich children pay tax.
Posted by: Diversity at Jul 15, 2008 3:13:02 PM
Some questions:
How much will Helmsley's bequest change the supply of dogs?
Given that dogs have a shorter expected life-span than people do, how does $1 at birth for a dog compare to $1 at birth for a person?
What are the most efficient expenditures, in terms of dog happiness? We can't exactly ask them.
If $8b is not too much for dogs for our society, about how much would be too much?
The annual wage for an unskilled dog is basically $0. How can one think that $100/dog is reasonable? This is many, many times their annual wages.
-Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Postlewaite at Jul 15, 2008 3:55:16 PM
"Given that dogs have a shorter expected life-span than people do, how does $1 at birth for a dog compare to $1 at birth for a person?"
A dollar is a dollar, _but_ shorter lifespan should correlate with a much higher discount rate. Here dog might not even survive the probate period to enjoy the cash! "Markets for Everything" may soon be reporting that some entrepreneur is making loans to dogs included in wills with super-high interest rates that exploit their high discount rates.
Posted by: liberalarts at Jul 15, 2008 4:25:01 PM
