4 ms·

While I wholeheartedly agree with the reasoning presented in the talk, I can see why TED chose not to distribute it. It presents a pretty conventional argument

While I wholeheartedly agree with the reasoning presented in the talk, I can see why TED chose not to distribute it. It presents a pretty conventional argument for progressive taxation, without bringing any new facts or insight to the table. Historically, there is no evidence of a significant correlation between top tax rates and economic growth. Whether you believe taxes help or hurt the economy is strictly a matter of faith---conservatives hold one opinion unsupported by the facts, liberals another. Unfortunately this talk doesn't shed any additional light on the matter.

dalai 14y ago
Perhaps it is not a very new or well supported argument, but this is not why TED chose not to show it. The TED curator basically admits that he doesn't agree with the idea and that he also finds it too partisan to distribute. I would be worried if it is really being cut because the curator doesn't agree with it. Now as to whether it is partisan or not, this is not the first TED talk that has that "issue", there are TED talks about creationism, atheism, global warming, contraception, etc.
- roel_v 14y ago
  Eh, no. He agrees with the idea, and exactly because it's too partisan, doesn't want to distribute it. As he should.
baddox 14y ago
Not to mention that people may reasonably disagree on the definition of "strong economy," and if having a "strong economy" is even a high priority compared to, say, personal liberty or socioeconomic equality.
gwright 14y ago
I don't know about 'strictly a matter of faith'. There is some pretty good evidence that 100% taxation (i.e. 100% of your earnings belong to the state and not to you) doesn't work to well. I'm not suggesting that there aren't reasonable arguments about what the marginal tax rate curve should look like (flat, curved, etc.) to optimize various economic metrics--just that there are some configurations that we can rule out as unworkable without much real controversy.

dalai 14y ago

Perhaps it is not a very new or well supported argument, but this is not why TED chose not to show it. The TED curator basically admits that he doesn't agree with the idea and that he also finds it too partisan to distribute. I would be worried if it is really being cut because the curator doesn't agree with it. Now as to whether it is partisan or not, this is not the first TED talk that has that "issue", there are TED talks about creationism, atheism, global warming, contraception, etc.

roel_v 14y ago
Eh, no. He agrees with the idea, and exactly because it's too partisan, doesn't want to distribute it. As he should.

baddox 14y ago

Not to mention that people may reasonably disagree on the definition of "strong economy," and if having a "strong economy" is even a high priority compared to, say, personal liberty or socioeconomic equality.

gwright 14y ago

I don't know about 'strictly a matter of faith'. There is some pretty good evidence that 100% taxation (i.e. 100% of your earnings belong to the state and not to you) doesn't work to well. I'm not suggesting that there aren't reasonable arguments about what the marginal tax rate curve should look like (flat, curved, etc.) to optimize various economic metrics--just that there are some configurations that we can rule out as unworkable without much real controversy.