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.
Does this “literature” on complaints basically say that if it’s large, you can complain about it?
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!
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.
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?
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.
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
Comments on this entry are closed.