How much of your tax money would you be alright spending if you knew,100%, that it would save an unknown persons life. Without spending that money they will die with 100% certainty. Is there a limit? If so how do you determine it? Does your answer change if you have to watch them die?
three fifty
Uh, oh, ah, I dunno, just around three fitty.
- Definitely 42.
(The answer to the OP, as opposed to the ultimate question, is: it depends. If it’s not someone I know and I have no emotion bond with this theoretical person, then it’s going to depend on the person. Is it a child? A woman? Man? Are they mothers/fathers? There are an almost endless number of variables that will effect my own answer here. A 20 year old drug dealer in Chicago is probably going to elicit less sympathy from me than a struggling single mother in Costa Rica. A father of 3 in New Deli is going to rate higher than a warlord in Africa, etc etc. Having to watch them die would be less important than who they were and how much of an emotional response they drew out of me on the cursory examination I’d presumably be give.).
-XT
The U.S Environmental Protection Agency has valued the worth of a human life at $7.2 million. So when it comes to deciding whether to implement a regulation, if it costs more than that per life saved it’s simply “not worth it.”
I’m comfortable with using that number for other applications as well, like Universal Health Care. If it’s going to cost the U.S government more than $7.2 million for your lifetime in medical bills, sorry but we’re pulling the plug. But I’ve never heard of anybody who has racked up medical bills like that so I don’t think it’s a major concern.
How about a married human life?
So if my maths is right, that’s about 2c per US citizen. Say 4c per taxpayer.
That’s not very much.
Am I footing the bill entirely, or is the expense shared by all taxpayers?
Possibly, depending who it is, I might pay more to watch the slacker die.
I’m going for “tree fitty”… But, if I get to watch 'em die, I’ll go for twice that. If I get to pull the trigger, I’ll pay 4x that.
Ya know, dude, there’s something called a “cost/benefit analysis”. If it’s 7.2 mil to definitely save 1, and that’s it, versus 7.2 mil to have a 10% chance to save each of 100, that would be 10 saved in the second case versus 1 saved in the first case, at the same price. I gotta go with the second case, and screw the “1” in the first…
I don’t know - too many variables. What type of person, how am I saving them, what am I saving them from?
No. I’m assuming by “tax money” you mean what proportion of the money I’m already taxed would I allocate to this, not what rate I’m willing to be taxed at to save this life.
See above
No.
I’m prepared to spend $1.
You said “a” life, and you didn’t say that there was a reserve.
…So they live?
Depends on whose life we’re talking about. Drew Brees? Price be damned, save that man and get him in shape for the season. JaMarcus Russell? Fuck him and his $39 million for 7 career wins in the NFL.
This makes rather a large difference - have we got an answer to this yet?
since it’s tax it will make no sense that one person is footing the entire bill for anything.
4 million babies born every year.
I think the government probably has to pull the plug way before we hit 7.2 million.
Now multiply that by 300 million.
Fair eoungh - I’ll pay three fifty, which is grandly more than my share. I’ll even go the extra mile and pay that in addition to my regular taxes if necessary.
What’s killing the 300 million people? And besides them, who’s paying the tax? Are you asking what every person is willing to pay to save their own life?
It’s a silly question because it doesn’t really work like that.
What is “three fifty”?
Which question is silly, and why doesn’t “it” work like “that”?
Three dollars and fifty cents, same as most other people in here have offered. Which by Aspidistra’s math gives the government around 630 million dollars to save the poor sod with, give or take a few dozen percent.
If one then turns around and asks me to donate comparable amounts of money for each of 300 million people, then obviously 1) that’s stupid, and 2) that’s not going to happen, because I do not happen to have a trillion dollars to give. Clearly if there’s that kind of catyclysm in the works we’re going to have to find an approach that doesn’t cost a quintillion dollars to implement, or just resign ourself to letting some significant percentage of the poor sods die.