4 ms·
And automation is enabled by a massive web of technologies made possible by government-funded research. So it seems that, by Paul's argument, it is justified to
by civilized 4y ago
And automation is enabled by a massive web of technologies made possible by government-funded research. So it seems that, by Paul's argument, it is justified to have very high taxes on the incomes created by these founders with these technologies.
The people, via their government, invested in modernizing and automating the economy, and they deserve to now reap the rewards and redistribute them broadly to the people, who ultimately funded the government research.
Certainly the founders make some contribution as well, but since they are standing on the shoulders of giants, a progressively smaller cut, perhaps as little as 1-5% for incomes above say $10 million, would be very justifiable. Whether we actually enact marginal taxes of 95-99% above $10M would reduce to technocratic questions of incentives and who puts the money to the best use. Just desserts would be out of the question.
Right?
- Vt71fcAqt7 4y agoDid the government sell these technologies? If not then how do the people make money from it? Sounds like the government gave it away for free: how can they now charge for it? Especially since tbe government mainly researches ideas rather than products. Should we pay Gutenburg's estate every time we print something? Perhaps Feynman gets a cut from nuclear power plants? Last I checked patents expire after 20 years. If the government has patented any technologies that are active, sure, let them charge for it.
- civilized 4y agoI am talking about how an equality-promoting system can be justified because I see that as desirable. In doing so I am showing that Paul Graham's view is not the only valid view about what people "deserve". Anyone who sees it as desirable to give enormous amounts of money to Feynman or Gutenberg's descendants is free to advocate for that as being what they deserve.