2 ms·
Sorry about the ad homs; the reviewer used moral/philosophical instead of technical reasons to argue against (except that point on simulations), so I assumed he
by VodkaHaze 10y ago
Sorry about the ad homs; the reviewer used moral/philosophical instead of technical reasons to argue against (except that point on simulations), so I assumed he was a riled up layperson. I read his review too fast, I guess.
The reviewer's point is this:
"Finally, the author is not asking me to personally give more money to the government, he wants me to support forcing other people to do it. But those other people have average luck, by definition "
But that's wrong; if the tax is progressive, and you take it as given that the successful are lucky, then you are in fact taxing the lucky with a progressive tax. The question is targeting the tax correctly.
- bduerst 10y agoThe reviewer had a few more points than just that, such as how the author not only fails to point out that luck is correlated with success, but contradicts himself. Even in that statement you quoted out of context, the reviewer is referring to how we all have the same amount of luck, so luck alone shouldn't be the basis for a progressive tax. Now, there are good reasons for a progressive tax, but the reviewer is saying it doesn't justify ignoring illogical arguments in the book. Just because the conclusion is proven right somewhere else doesn't mean that all arguments for it are valid.