> I'm struggling to think of a progressive tax scheme that calls for 99.9% tax rate even on the highest bracket. $1 vs $1000 is such a bad straw man I'm not sur

> I'm struggling to think of a progressive tax scheme that calls for 99.9% tax rate even on the highest bracket. $1 vs $1000 is such a bad straw man I'm not sure why you'd weaken your argument with it. Choose your own numbers. I made the argument because the point isn't the numbers, the point is that attenuating the reward distribution changes human capital decisions. > I'm not convinced by this. Every successful person who has created immense value for the world stood on the shoulders of not only giants but thousands of little people contributing to society. In what way does the necessity of infrastructure, both social and physical, contradict the point of the paper?