= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid comments on Some Heuristics for Evaluating the Soundness of the Academic Mainstream in Unfamiliar Fields - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Comments (272)
That's the status quo. The proposal, as I understood it, was to have additional taxes specific to art.
(I had let the parent be, not wanting to emphasise disagreement but the follow up prompts a reply.)
I do not share your interpretation. The relevant quote is:
... A general sentiment regarding where he would place a slider on a simplistic one dimensional scale of financial incentive vs disincentive. It is definitely not a proposal for specific intervention in any particular jurisdiction.
Come to think of it your status quo claim is way off. The following is definitely not the status quo:
Incidentally, investment in culture and education - even with respect to visual arts - is something I approve of. I just note that your questioning was rather disingenuous:
Taxation and subsidisation are well understood. This objection is silly (your other soldiers are better).
Right; and he was wanting to place it to the right of zero (on the "disincentive" side) whereas you were talking about moving it from the left of zero to zero. This is the distinction I was pointing out.
See the very comment you linked, which contains a reminder that my "status quo" remark did not apply to that aspect.
The main point of that was to emphasize transaction costs of taxation. You will note that I immediately followed it by a more "reasonable" suggestion so as to forestall accusations of being overly rhetorical.