takoma wrote:Maybe you can give examples of things that were accomplished because of a 35% tax rate that would not have been done if it had been 40%, but I'll be shocked if you come up with anything significant.

I will argue that maybe there is a significant difference between an economy running on 70% tax rates as opposed to 35% tax rates, but the conservative movement seems to be stuck in a mode where it's still 1979, still in search of dragons to slay.

Anonymous wrote:you need an incentive to not stay a low income levels subsidzed by the government. Humans by nature are lazy and unless it is uncomfortable won't leave a situation.

Which explains why poverty just didn't exist at all, lolrite?

I do wonder, however, whether class mobility was greater then than it is now. I do know if you're born in the bottom 20% in Europe, you're more likely to make the top 20% than you are if you're in the bottom 20% of America.

Anonymous wrote:you need an incentive to not stay a low income levels subsidzed by the government. Humans by nature are lazy and unless it is uncomfortable won't leave a situation.

I plead guilty to that. Despite the fact that I have generally been liked by people, have fine credentials, am pretty bright, and had opportunity to do much better financially, I was and am perfectly satisfied with a reasonably comfortable middle-class existence. The ability to be a millionaire was not an incentive for me.

My brother came from the same background, and had comparable talents, but always strove for more. He was running a department store in his thirties. That was back in the 70's when the top tax rate was still 70%.

Two people do not form much of a statistical sample, but everything I have seen in my (all too many) years tells me that what drives people is what is inside of them, not the marginal tax rate on what they earn. Some of us are lazy, or if I may be kind to myself, place more value on a simple relaxed life, and some feel happy only when striving to do more and better. Maybe you can give examples of things that were accomplished because of a 35% tax rate that would not have been done if it had been 40%, but I'll be shocked if you come up with anything significant.

Anonymous wrote:you need an incentive to not stay a low income levels subsidzed by the government. Humans by nature are lazy and unless it is uncomfortable won't leave a situation.

Look! Prof. Epstein came here to address us directly.

<i> I don't see what makes him so interesting. He could just as well be any of the Rep candidates, or for that matter some loudmouth on a bar stool.</i>

He's interesting because he's an authority figure, telling wealthy people what they want to hear. We can't be absolved of our amoral impulses by a loudmouth on a barstool or a politician. We need a hard-right conservative lawyer...erm, sorry "law professor" with academic credentials.

you need an incentive to not stay a low income levels subsidzed by the government. Humans by nature are lazy and unless it is uncomfortable won't leave a situation.

Anonymous wrote:He doesn't say that every limitation on incentives is bad. That's not a fair "reading".

I think he pretty much does. He talks about ANY redistributive system as bad because it interferes with the promise of a "high" (read: infinite) income.

It's all just a bunch of BS unsupported by any data. I don't see what makes him so interesting. He could just as well be any of the Rep candidates, or for that matter some loudmouth on a bar stool. Actually, most people don't get drunk enough to say that the rich having disproportionate political power is a good thing because a one-man-one-vote democracy is "the last thing you want." He's also distinctive that his delivery is really grating; I wondered if he has Asperger's.

What's-his-name repeatedly nailed him, like when he asked about disincentives to children from inheritance. That's OK, Epstein says, b/c people are thoughtful when they leave money to their kids, as opposed to the government, which acts randomly. You know - b/c it's so common for the rich to write off undedeserving kids.

He also contradicts himself there, b/c he attributes the 50s-60s growth to smart, non-distributive government programs like the highway system. Add that up: you shouldn't tax the rich any more - even, say, to Reagan era levels - but good government spending creates growth, so it's don't-tax-and-do-spend. There's a fresh idea.

He doesn't say that every limitation on incentives is bad. That's not a fair "reading".

I assume Epstein is Jewish. I'm Jewish. But I am controlling the urge to feel ashamed, since I do not believe his being an asshole is caused by his being Jewish.

He distorts or evades every point raised against his thesis. I could not keep track of the number of times I shouted "Bullshit!" as he spoke. His argument is basically that some incentives are necessary, so any limitation on incentives is a bad thing.

Richard Epstein discusses financial inequality

http://video.pbs.org/video/2160792049