6 ms·
It’s about the incentives and marginal change. Sure, you’d go for earning more, but now you’re less incentivized to do so. It might not matter to you, but it ma
by bigyikes 3y ago
It’s about the incentives and marginal change. Sure, you’d go for earning more, but now you’re less incentivized to do so. It might not matter to you, but it matters to the people at the margins — the people who are just on the edge of being willing to make an upward move but will decline to do so if their potential gross is lower than it otherwise could’ve been.
- Dylan16807 3y agoSure, that's fine though. Being less motivated to push for higher income is a far cry from deciding you don't want it and would rather have a lower income. Also I haven't seen any plans that would remove particularly much motivation below a million dollars, and by the time you're making a million dollars I wouldn't say there needs to be motivation to go for more.
- harimau777 3y agoThe problem in the parent's post is that people advocating for "taxing the rich" aren't actually talking about people who are being payed $100K. They are talking about people whose wealth comes from owning property. In that case, I'm not sure that our intuition about the effect of marginal incentives necessarily applies to the same degree. E.g. if a wealthy industrialist decides not to invest in a some piece of capital, it's not as though the capital ceases to exist; it will just be used by someone else. E.g. if an industrialist decides not to invest in a gold mine, then it's not as though the gold disappears. The land will simply be developed by someone else.