3 ms·

Ronald Regan, as a movie star, regularly didn't make movies precisely because the progressive tax system would head into confiscatory levels making the effort w

Ronald Regan, as a movie star, regularly didn't make movies precisely because the progressive tax system would head into confiscatory levels making the effort worthless to him. Such rates denied both the public at large from products they wanted, and the government tax revenue. I don't want my world to actively discourage the talented from producing. I want to encourage people to make insane amounts of money, because that is largely the result of far-and-above productivity which everyone else benefits from. Jobs are created, desirable products/services are generated at affordable costs, money is invested (even banked "cash" gets loaned, and extravagant luxuries create markets), and the general standard of living is raised. The cost of discouraging effort is never included in these "soak the rich, redistribute the wealth" equations.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> Ronald Regan, as a movie star, regularly didn't make movies precisely because the progressive tax system would head into confiscatory levels making the effort worthless to him. Really, if the greatest cost to society you can point to of increasing the top marginal income tax rates is "fewer Ronald Reagan movies", I don't think you are making a very strong case. > Such rates denied both the public at large from products they wanted, and the government tax revenue. The case that it denied government net tax revenue requires more than Reagan not making movies, it requires a whole-economy comparison of what activity occurred instead and the actual taxes applied against that activity. > I want to encourage people to make insane amounts of money, because that is largely the result of far-and-above productivity which everyone else benefits from. This "trickle down" concept is a widely held article of faith in some parts of the population, but not a position well supported by evidence. > The cost of discouraging effort is never included in these "soak the rich, redistribute the wealth" equations. The "cost of discouraging effort" is very hard to empirically establish without ambiguity, and there are sharply different opinions on what it actually is. What proponents think that cost is usually accounted for in where the various parameters are set; people who have different views of what the cost is, obviously, disagree that these settings are correct.
- ctdonath 11y ago
  Pardon me for using a simple high-profile example to make the point. Detailing the failings of socialism in a mathematically provable form would take far more text than you are willing to read. As you note, it is very hard to empirically establish without ambiguity the economic realities of taking from those who earn and giving it to those who don't. Perhaps, given the understandable disagreements, we should adhere to the notion of individual freedoms which the Founding Fathers enacted for the USA and let those who wish to pool their wealth do so, and those who would rather decide for themselves do so; alas, we face the votes of those seeking to force, thru threat of government-sanctioned violence, others to adhere to economic principles they deeply disagree with.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> Ronald Regan, as a movie star, regularly didn't make movies precisely because the progressive tax system would head into confiscatory levels making the effort worthless to him. Really, if the greatest cost to society you can point to of increasing the top marginal income tax rates is "fewer Ronald Reagan movies", I don't think you are making a very strong case. > Such rates denied both the public at large from products they wanted, and the government tax revenue. The case that it denied government net tax revenue requires more than Reagan not making movies, it requires a whole-economy comparison of what activity occurred instead and the actual taxes applied against that activity. > I want to encourage people to make insane amounts of money, because that is largely the result of far-and-above productivity which everyone else benefits from. This "trickle down" concept is a widely held article of faith in some parts of the population, but not a position well supported by evidence. > The cost of discouraging effort is never included in these "soak the rich, redistribute the wealth" equations. The "cost of discouraging effort" is very hard to empirically establish without ambiguity, and there are sharply different opinions on what it actually is. What proponents think that cost is usually accounted for in where the various parameters are set; people who have different views of what the cost is, obviously, disagree that these settings are correct.

ctdonath 11y ago
Pardon me for using a simple high-profile example to make the point. Detailing the failings of socialism in a mathematically provable form would take far more text than you are willing to read. As you note, it is very hard to empirically establish without ambiguity the economic realities of taking from those who earn and giving it to those who don't. Perhaps, given the understandable disagreements, we should adhere to the notion of individual freedoms which the Founding Fathers enacted for the USA and let those who wish to pool their wealth do so, and those who would rather decide for themselves do so; alas, we face the votes of those seeking to force, thru threat of government-sanctioned violence, others to adhere to economic principles they deeply disagree with.