AmagicalFishy comments on What Cost for Irrationality? - Less Wrong

59 Post author: Kaj_Sotala 01 July 2010 06:25PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (113)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: simplicio 05 July 2010 06:36:36AM 1 point [-]

Here, most people would also say no - they'd want the "bonus" for children to be equal for low- and high-income families, but they do not want the "penalty" for lacking children to be the high for same and low income.

Note typo.

Great post! I actually started trying to argue against your analysis here in the child tax example, based on my own intuition. Then I realized I was being a sophist. I had good reasons for both preferences, but the reason for the progressive penalty wasn't applied to the flat bonus, nor vice versa.

I might have to be careful about how this 'politics' thing affects my thinking.

Comment author: AmagicalFishy 14 November 2015 04:03:13AM 0 points [-]

I know this post is five years old, but can someone explain this to me? I understood that both questions could have an answer of no because one may want to minimize the monetary loss / maximize the monetary gain of the poorer family—therefore, the poorer family should get a higher reduction and a lower penalty. Am I misunderstanding something about the situation?