2 ms·

I don't know, but that seems like the kind of snarky one-liner that doesn't add anything to the discussion. Because davidw said it so well, I'll just inline quo

I don't know, but that seems like the kind of snarky one-liner that doesn't add anything to the discussion. Because davidw said it so well, I'll just inline quote him here: This is exactly the kind of comment that I feared we would see when articles like this start gaining traction. It's a cheese puff comment: it's got some taste, but it's empty. It has nothing to back it up, no content, no reasoning, no well crafted argument. It's just an empty "rah rah" type of slogan of the type that politicians regularly regurgitate. There is nothing new or clever about the comment, it's the sort of thing that's made the rounds elsewhere 100's of times. Being such a cheap, throwaway comment, it mostly/usually doesn't lead to particularly interesting discussions, as we can see here, despite a few good comments, but more zingers, one liners and similar "go home team!" cheering for one political side.

grandalf 16y ago
I think you misinterpreted my comment. It was intended to be pithy, not snarky. So your parents think that their current tax rate is too low, so I named a higher rate. Why is 80% outlandish? My point was simply that it's a bit silly to bemoan the low rate of taxes today unless you name a rate that you think is reasonable. Clearly you think 80% is unreasonable. If one only thinks a 1-2% increase is reasonable, then stipulate that, rather than making the grandiose claim that taxes should raised considerably. Isn't an 80% rate a considerable increase? The fact is, most people think that 80% is grossly unreasonable. Why? At least there should be a principled argument, not just a rich person bragging (via a complaint) that he/she could afford higher taxes.
- jonpaul 16y ago
  Great point, but you should have stated that in your original comment.
  - grandalf 16y ago
    I assumed the intent would be obvious... alas I hope the comment triggers further discussion at this point.
- Locke1689 16y ago
  Clearly you think 80% is unreasonable I never said that. I said that, as given, your comment had no argument or reasoning. This is the comment you should have originally posted, not your two word question which vaguely implied your real argument.
  - grandalf 16y ago
    That aside, do you have a response? How about 90%?
    - vannevar 16y ago
      90% superficially sounds unreasonable, because we have a tendency to think that wealth is distributed on a bell curve. But wealth is not distributed that way, it is distributed according to a power law, which means that a significant number of people make in excess of $100M per year while others make less than $1000. If wealth were distributed according to skill and ability, the ratio between the highest and lowest would be much lower and billionaires would be as rare as 100 ft tall people. The idea that a person could personally contribute the equivalent of $100M of value in a year per their efforts and skills (which ARE distributed on a bell curve) is absurd. It is this mismatch between the distribution of ability and the distribution of wealth that the rich exploit. So for someone making $100M/year, a 90% tax rate is not unreasonable at all.

grandalf 16y ago

I think you misinterpreted my comment. It was intended to be pithy, not snarky. So your parents think that their current tax rate is too low, so I named a higher rate. Why is 80% outlandish? My point was simply that it's a bit silly to bemoan the low rate of taxes today unless you name a rate that you think is reasonable. Clearly you think 80% is unreasonable. If one only thinks a 1-2% increase is reasonable, then stipulate that, rather than making the grandiose claim that taxes should raised considerably. Isn't an 80% rate a considerable increase? The fact is, most people think that 80% is grossly unreasonable. Why? At least there should be a principled argument, not just a rich person bragging (via a complaint) that he/she could afford higher taxes.

jonpaul 16y ago
Great point, but you should have stated that in your original comment.
- grandalf 16y ago
  I assumed the intent would be obvious... alas I hope the comment triggers further discussion at this point.
Locke1689 16y ago
Clearly you think 80% is unreasonable I never said that. I said that, as given, your comment had no argument or reasoning. This is the comment you should have originally posted, not your two word question which vaguely implied your real argument.
- grandalf 16y ago
  That aside, do you have a response? How about 90%?
  - vannevar 16y ago
    90% superficially sounds unreasonable, because we have a tendency to think that wealth is distributed on a bell curve. But wealth is not distributed that way, it is distributed according to a power law, which means that a significant number of people make in excess of $100M per year while others make less than $1000. If wealth were distributed according to skill and ability, the ratio between the highest and lowest would be much lower and billionaires would be as rare as 100 ft tall people. The idea that a person could personally contribute the equivalent of $100M of value in a year per their efforts and skills (which ARE distributed on a bell curve) is absurd. It is this mismatch between the distribution of ability and the distribution of wealth that the rich exploit. So for someone making $100M/year, a 90% tax rate is not unreasonable at all.