Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s a falsifiable argument. US has averaged faster economic growth with high marginal tax rates than low ones. The reality is rich people have no choice but to invest their wealth or inflation eats it up. The only real change from 15% to 70% marginal tax rates is the amount of effort put into tax avoidance. The reason for this is maximizing income occurs before taxes are calculated, so you can get nearly identical…
I don't think you've falsified the argument. Maybe you would have if economic growth and marginal tax rates are the only variables. I think it's pretty clear that progressive taxes create negative incentives, particularly when it comes to encouraging people to get rich in the first place (which usually means starting a business). > Further, equality of opportunity is surprisingly cheap over time. You end up with more…
Anyway, few people are going to turn down becoming rich because they end up with only 100 million instead of 300 million dollars. Opportunity however plays an important role and again you can measure relative importance via social mobility. Comparing different counties at different time periods and once again Opportunity ends up far more important than high but not punitive tax rates.
We are never going to have absolutely identical opportunity for everyone in society. But, these are not platonic ideals rather measurable and testable pragmatic choices.