This being
tax day, I remembered not long ago having had an interesting discussion with a friend in a forum; my friend was arguing that the reason our economy has faltered is that our government taxes the wealthy
too little, leaving them with so much
wealth that they simply lack an incentive to invest in additional wealth-creating (and job-creating) activities. He argued the point thusly (with his permission to paraphrase his argument here, naturally):
Consider.
If your goal is to get $1 billion, and I give you $1 billion, congratulations, you've reached your goal. You need invest no more. You can sit on your laurels.
If your goal is to get $1 billion, and I give you $500 million, now you are only halfway there and will need to invest (create jobs, build industry) to reach your goal.
If your goal is to get $1 billion, and I give you $1 billion, and the government takes half of that leaving you with $500 million, you will again be halfway there and need to invest to reach your goal.
The great flaw I suggested to have hamstrung this analysis is the idea that there is some set monetary 'goal' held by rich people, and the reaching this goal instantly alleviates their desire to increase their wealth. For the most part, those who achieve such great wealth have enough of a
lust for it that hitting a billion dollars would likely only make them want to get to two billion, and so letting hit that one plateau would mean they'd have all the more incentive to invest. Or maybe neither of these views reflects how things work in the real world, and it's simply that everybody is different, and what incentivizes one disincentivizes another, and what's left is a wash.
----
In case anybody who missed the earlier catbox conversation is interested,
here is the Pygmy Leaf Chameleon, who's really sneaky trick is to stop growing once he gets to be as big as your
fingernail. That adorably cunning little bastard.
----
In auditing news, progress!!
Tem42 --
up to page 33 out of 36 (!!!!!!)
The Custodian --
on page 24 out of 39