Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

It means the ordering remains monotonic. It means if you’re on top of the world, you remain so with all the psychological trappings, just on a slightly lower mound. The scraps that come from slightly lowering your absolute position (but keeping relative position the same) will go to addressing externalities and common goods.



> It means the ordering remains monotonic

Are you willing to work as hard for $1 as for $1000, even if your relative status remains unchanged?

> The scraps that come from slightly lowering your absolute position (but keeping relative position the same) will go to addressing externalities and common goods.

Yes, but the entire point of this paper is that those 'scraps' are actually worth less than the economic gains produced by the ideas that receive these high top incomes.


I'm struggling to think of a progressive tax scheme that calls for 99.9% tax rate even on the highest bracket. $1 vs $1000 is such a bad straw man I'm not sure why you'd weaken your argument with it.

> the entire point of this paper is that those 'scraps' are actually worth less than the economic gains produced by the ideas that receive these high top incomes.

I'm not convinced by this. Every successful person who has created immense value for the world stood on the shoulders of not only giants but thousands of little people contributing to society. Those top income receiving ideas mean nothing in a society with no law, infrastructure, education, or opportunities. You think taxes stifle innovation? What would Bezos have accomplished had he been born to an uneducated militant in current day Syria?


> I'm struggling to think of a progressive tax scheme that calls for 99.9% tax rate even on the highest bracket. $1 vs $1000 is such a bad straw man I'm not sure why you'd weaken your argument with it.

Choose your own numbers. I made the argument because the point isn't the numbers, the point is that attenuating the reward distribution changes human capital decisions.

> I'm not convinced by this. Every successful person who has created immense value for the world stood on the shoulders of not only giants but thousands of little people contributing to society.

In what way does the necessity of infrastructure, both social and physical, contradict the point of the paper?


> the ordering remains monotonic

That only holds true if you assume people will act the same exact way and with the same exact outcomes. This is a silly assumption to make when you significantly change both the incentives and the difficulty.

> The scraps ... will go to addressing externalities and common goods.

What world do you live in?




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: