Re: Dave's Denial

From: Dave Long (
Date: Mon Mar 26 2001 - 10:54:12 PST

I apologize for the prior wording; here's a better version:

A/ The progressive tax system perpetuates/increases a wealth gap, because
B/ it penalizes a certain demographic which Jeff has identified, as
C/ they must work several times as hard to double net gain,
F/ but the uber-rich invest instead of paying taxes

A if F, but F contradicts A.
(see below for discussion of C)

> You're implying that *any* tax system which allows the highest wealth
> class to accumulate wealth tax-free is regressive; ...

Yes. *

> You're synthesizing an argument ... which I've not made as a single
> argument, but rather several independent assertions ...

I synthesized the argument in the belief that you
don't knowingly make inconsistent assertions.

Upon seeing:
1/ Progressive taxes are evil
2/ FairTax(sm) is good

I can say "wrong, but JB-consistent".

After seeing:
3/ The Matthew effect is a problem

I have to wonder "correct, but why do G & J agree,
since J's #1 and #2 aren't consistent with #3?"

Finally, seeing:
4/ Progressive taxes perpetuate and
        increase the Matthew effect

I must say "false", by semantics.



* It could be flat, if no one pays any taxes.
  It could be progressive, if everyone other
  than the highest wealth class gets paid.
  (pays negative taxes)
  Realistically, it'd be regressive.

:: :: ::

> C is an accurate representation of my belief.

I thought "income" as top line and "net gain"
as bottom line amounts was consistent with
your terminology, if not, I can change it:

C/ they must work several times as hard to double net gain, since
D/ they face an aggregate tax rate which is TOO HIGH, and
E/ doubling income requires working twice as hard

C would be true, if E were true, but doubling
gross income doesn't require working twice as
hard. Luckier, and smarter, are alternatives
to harder.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 27 2001 - 23:14:55 PDT