>Less work means less is produced If we were all just moving rocks around, that statement might be true. But human productivity is a much richer equation than

>Less work means less is produced If we were all just moving rocks around, that statement might be true. But human productivity is a much richer equation than time work in == value produced. Where would we be if we took that to its logical conclusion and put kids to work rather than send them to school? If we all worked 16 hour days? Your model doesn't consider productivity/unit time, nor the case of win-lose bargaining in the case where the 'lose' party is at a disadvantage and bargaining to lose less rather than for gain. Disincentivizing work (in the near term) can be a net positive over time if the person that turns away from that trade uses their unsold time to increase their overall productivity/unit time or if they use their enhanced alternative to a negotiated agreement to turn a negotiation that would have otherwise been a 'lose but lose a bit less' or 'tread water' situation into a gain for themselves. My only question is whether the productivity and value gains from enhanced productivity/unit time and employee/employer negotiations where the employee always has a workable alternative to employment will be more than what is lost in the reallocation through taxes? Considering how much the top has and how little it would take to move those still in desperate poverty to merely being poor, I'd be willing to bet the overall value creation would far outstrip the losses in taxes. But it's a fair question.