Lumifer comments on The best 15 words - Less Wrong

12 Post author: apophenia 03 October 2013 09:08AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (383)
Tags: schelling_study_group short expected_value voi compression

Comments (383)

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

Comment author: Lumifer 08 October 2013 05:23:13PM *  2 points [-]

why doesn't turning the dial to 11 on classical liberalism take you towards complete stateless anarchism

It takes me towards, that is, in that general direction. It doesn't get there, though, because classical liberals were quite familiar with stateless anarchism and have rejected it.

and progressives believe that the market has a role to play in solving the economic calculation problem. They also have commitments to civil liberties and individual autonomy that are incompatible with a Soviet-style dictatorship

Again, turning the dial to 11 moves the progressives towards Soviet Russia without necessarily getting them there.

Note my examples -- they do not mention hanging capitalists on the lampposts.

Imagine a committed (maybe even a radical) progressive finding himself in a country which taxes incomes over, say $500,000 at the 99% tax rate. Would he start to demand lower taxes on the rich? Not bloody likely, and this is a confiscatory tax regime.

Comment author: shminux 08 October 2013 05:39:54PM 1 point [-]

Imagine a committed (maybe even a radical) progressive finding himself in a country which taxes incomes over, say $500,000 at the 99% tax rate. Would he start to demand lower taxes on the rich? Not bloody likely, and this is a confiscatory tax regime.

By the way, the marginal income tax rate in the US on incomes over $100k was 92% in 1953, and 70% on incomes over $108k until 1981, when Reagan first started trading taxes for deficits.

Source.

Comment author: Lumifer 08 October 2013 05:53:57PM *  3 points [-]

From your source, in 1953 the marginal tax on ordinary income over $200K was 92% for single filers and that's $1.7m in today's dollars.

I do wonder how many people were in this tax bracket. For the rich most of their income was dividends and capital gains -- not part of ordinary income.

Comment author: shminux 08 October 2013 06:18:36PM *  0 points [-]

Sure, 92% on $1.7m/yr it's not quite 99% on $500k/yr, as in your example, but it's not too far off, and it is interesting to examine how people on different sides of the political spectrum reacted to it. I don't know if any of the "progressives" (meaning leftists?) demanded lower taxes back then.

Comment author: Lumifer 08 October 2013 07:44:23PM 4 points [-]

By the way: a nice graph and an amusing fact:

The Wealth Tax Act of 1935, applied the top rate to income over $5 million and had only a single taxpayer: John D. Rockefeller, Jr.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit