It is a methodological mistake to equate giving to a local charity to paying one's taxes. Would their brains have lit up by paying inheritance tax or 30% tax on the $100 cheque they had just received?

william, northwood,

Well, all those various assertions were worth about as much as the bizarre one in the middle about fMRI tests confirming the doctrine of original sin. People in general rush so irresponsibly into saying "hardwired into our brains" that I think the phrase must be hardwired into our brains.

Felix, Nottingham,

Giving to good causes makes people feel good? That's hardly a new idea; it's why we have had charities for centuries.

What people DONT like is having their money stolen by a load of incompetents for them to spend on their personal bigotries - or simply wasted!

Mike Bibby, St Albans, England -not EU

Where I work there is a payroll giving scheme whereby you can give money straight out of your pay and the donations appear on your monthly payslip. Perhaps this system could be adjusted so that for every £1 you donate to charity, possibly up to a limit, the amount of tax you pay could be reduced by £1.

Sam, Cambridge, UK

Taxes simply transfer money to govt officials. _After_ their salaries, offices, pensions & perks are covered, _then_ money is made available to those 'poor' who can cope with the regulations, forms, the officials themselves. We're repeatedly warned against advertising. Why do we have to swallow the propaganda that officials put out?

Sudha Shenoy, Birmingham Gardens NSW, Australia

You can't look at this study on its own. You have to also consider the studies done on tax rates etc - particularly marginal tax rates.

There are also social influences - different societies have different views about material items etc.

Andrew, Hitchin, UK

How does neuroeconomics address the more subtle questions?

Some people believe that subsidies create or preserve jobs. Others believe that subsidies deliberately keep one group out of work so as to preserve the illusion of work for another, more politically influential group.

My brain doesn't light up with joy when I'm taxed to keep Airbus limping along, and you don't need a brain scanner to know that. But can a scan tell you whether this is because I'm a skinflint, or because I'm irritated at the waste which is destroying, not creating, wealth overall? From the article it would appear not. Yet from the viewpoint of policy that question would appear to be far more important than merely whether I'm happy to give or not.

ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK

What about the other research paper (discussed in this week's Economist) showing that men are happy to give to charity but mainly when their contribution is noticed and they are seeking a mate, and that women are happy to work for charity, but mainly when their contribution is noticed and they are seeking a mate? Might this not indicate that any neuroeconomic study where people know they are being monitored may lead to false results? It seems to be the perfect example of the act of observation changing the object observed...

JS, Cambridge,

Cobblers.
More specifically, I'm quite prepared to be " taxed " on money which magically appears in my account. In order to really mean anything, this experiment would need to be repeated using people's own actual hard-earned. And let me tell you, if anyone transfers money from my account without my permission they'll have the benefit of my forcefully expressed views.
If neuroeconomics will "transform social policy" then let's try this. People whose pleasure centres light up on MRI scans when taxed should be taxed more [ well, they enjoy it so much don't they? ] while those of us whose brain regions associated with resentfullness light up when taxed should be spared the pain. Where do I sign up?

James , Canberra, Australia.

I think it is a highly suspicious conclusion that because people are happy to find that their money has gone to a local charity that proves they like to be taxed. Hardly anyone associates a local private charity with a government mandated program--only some of which, by the way, could be in any normal sense be considered "charitable." This kind of conclusion comes from predisposition toward result; it does not flow from a reasonable analysis. Faulty logic this.

Regarding the other question about government taxation crowding out charitable giving, there is certainly evidence that that is the case. The French give 1/20 as much in private charity per GNP as do Americans. Of course, Americans really invented philanthropy, and it is nice to see it beginning to spread around the world. It is probably also relevant to this inquiry that the religious amongst us give much more than the nonreligious.

Keep up the inquiry, but be careful about your conclusions

Truly yours,

Gary L Conner , Walnut Creek, CA