I found this interesting. It's from Yglesias. The first I never recognized, the second I had forgotten.
>>One thing to say is that tax policy impacts pre-tax distribution. When the top income tax rate was very high -- 70 percent or above -- this not only meant that rich people paid a lot in taxes, it also meant that there were a broad range of circumstances where it didn't necessarily make much sense to offer well-compensated people even more compensation. When you have a very progressive rate structure, an employer can get a lot more bang for his buck by directing his employment budget at middle-income people than at rich people. As you flatten the tax structure, this becomes less-and-less the case.
Similarly, very high tax rates encourage high income people to engage in more leisure and less work whereas right now we have the somewhat odd situation where highly compensated people tend to work more than do the moderately compensated.<<
If its not worth your time feel free to ignore it. <g>
I just meant that, like global warming, I'm not qualified to have an opinion--you'd need a specific advanced degree and a lot of experience to be qualified to hold any opinion at all. It's not worth ten years of my time to get qualified on either. But I am interested enough to read the discussion so thanks for the links. <g>
I could probably with a bit of effort come up with an opinion on the point, if any, at which economic inequality or a growth in economic inequality becomes a problem. But whether or not it is happening and how much it happens is outside my expertise. I do know enough, though, to be skeptical of arguments from folks with agendas and to read carefully. I know, for example, that income inequality is not the same thing as economic inequality and not to be diverted by that. And to be skeptical of arguments that slide over that kind of distortion. Likewise arguments that make an issue over Krugman's personal economic status. |
