tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-122860087135730716.post2905099186649111573..comments2024-03-11T00:20:28.670-07:00Comments on Richard H. Serlin: Sharply Progressive Taxation Virtuous CircleRichard H. Serlinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09824966626830758801noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-122860087135730716.post-79148707667612828832012-02-28T17:25:13.921-08:002012-02-28T17:25:13.921-08:00There is another benefit: because the margin for g...There is another benefit: because the margin for goods sold to the wealthy is much higher, if you look at storefronts in a town, or urban area, a small number of rich people are served by a high number of storefronts, and a large number of middle/poor people get many fewer store fronts.<br />I don't think this is just sales volume (in dollars) it is also margin - it is a lot more profitable to sell one organic fairtrade latte at 10$ then five regular coffees at 2$, so the stores for the rich tend to crowd out the stores for the poor.<br />also, as you note in todays comment re cochrane, envy is a lot of utility; the rich cause a huge problem for the rest of us when we see themAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-122860087135730716.post-44386258627099416522011-09-28T15:21:22.516-07:002011-09-28T15:21:22.516-07:00another advantage is related to the higher margins...another advantage is related to the higher margins producers make on luxury goods.<br />Because there is a lot more profit in a 70,000 dollar car or a 1MM house, carmakers and home builders devote to much energy to this stuff.<br />Also, the higher margins that shopkeepers get means that a small% of rich people can support a larger number of shops then a large% of poor people, so if you live in a town with a small number of rich people, all the stores and shops that serve the poor with be driven out, and replaced by chi chi shops for the small number of rich people.<br /><br />there is a similar argument on the corporate tax; if you reduce the amt of money companies have, they have less chance to do mischief<br /><br />Ezra AbramsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-122860087135730716.post-89071768059074073752011-09-20T16:01:47.451-07:002011-09-20T16:01:47.451-07:00Just because a moderate amount is good doesn't...Just because a moderate amount is good doesn't mean any extreme amount is good also. One mulit-vitamin a day will improve your health over the long run, especially if you are really deficient without it; 100 will kill you. A few tablets of penicillin can save your life; 100 may kill you. Four years of college will make you a lot wealthier; 70 will leave you in poverty your whole life. The optimal amount of college (as a student only) is not 0 and it's not 100% of your life; it's an amount in-between.<br /><br />Many things graph U-shaped (or inverted U-shaped), not monotonically better or monotonically worse. You chose the amount that maximizes the U, which is not 0 and not 100%.Richard H. Serlinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09824966626830758801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-122860087135730716.post-14995162940259044452011-09-19T11:18:23.562-07:002011-09-19T11:18:23.562-07:00I'll play your logical game to its extreme and...I'll play your logical game to its extreme and argue that the tax rate should be 100% for all levels of income. If the presence of campaign and press control is a source of inefficiency in the government then it should be outlawed for all segments of the income earners. Just think how much more efficient the government would be!!!! Our efficient and benevolent rulers would not have any corrupting influences over their distribution decisions and surely deliver to us the most amazing lifestyle since North Korea.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com