Perhaps I’m biased, not being personally rich (though tax time is painful for me every year, and I console myself with the thought that my taxes are intended to do good). But while I can accept in principle that taxes could serve as a discouragement to productivity, in the grand old days of the 50s, when most conservatives thought America was doing so well, the top marginal income tax range was over 90%. So I fail to accept that high marginal income tax rates for the extremely wealthy must destroy ecomonic progress. But if they don’t do that, what’s wrong with them? Who will seriously argue that it’s bad to have heavy taxes on the rich because they’ll mean the rich aren’t as much wealthier as everyone else as they want to be? Who will argue that it’s good for Paris Hilton to have no financial worries for the rest of her life, absolutely without regard for what effect such policies might have on others? To be ruthlessly pragmatic for a moment, such thinking seems to me to be begging for a revolution.

I certainly have some biases. I am definitely not rich; I am below the median American income. I am, however, scarily well educated, and this seems to be significantly responsible for what success I have had. To the extent I’m right about this, my race, gender, and social class have certainly not been irrelevant; I have a good enough background to easily schmooze with the typically white academic males I need to in order to keep my academic career going and in order to keep getting my jobs (well, on a couple of occasions, I was interviewed by women, but while I’d like to say my success in those interviews came down to my native charm, realistically it’s hard to see how my class status, as somebody in the same category, didn’t help me a lot even in those interviews).

Let that strain pass from the earth? “Bad luck”? You’re a bit too harsh on this subject, it seems. I consider myself basically libertarian but when I listen to somebody like you I pause and wonder if maybe the government shouldn’t just take a little money out of our pockets just to piss people like you off.

Let that strain pass from the earth? “Bad luck”? You’re a bit too harsh on this subject, it seems. I consider myself basically libertarian but when I listen to somebody like you I pause and wonder if maybe the government shouldn’t just take a little money out of our pockets just to piss people like you off.

Perhaps I’m biased, not being personally rich (though tax time is painful for me every year, and I console myself with the thought that my taxes are intended to do good). But while I can accept in principle that taxes could serve as a discouragement to productivity, in the grand old days of the 50s, when most conservatives thought America was doing so well, the top marginal income tax range was over 90%. So I fail to accept that high marginal income tax rates for the extremely wealthy must destroy ecomonic progress. But if they don’t do that, what’s wrong with them? Who will seriously argue that it’s bad to have heavy taxes on the rich because they’ll mean the rich aren’t as much wealthier as everyone else as they want to be? Who will argue that it’s good for Paris Hilton to have no financial worries for the rest of her life, absolutely without regard for what effect such policies might have on others? To be ruthlessly pragmatic for a moment, such thinking seems to me to be begging for a revolution.

I certainly have some biases. I am definitely not rich; I am below the median American income. I am, however, scarily well educated, and this seems to be significantly responsible for what success I have had. To the extent I’m right about this, my race, gender, and social class have certainly not been irrelevant; I have a good enough background to easily schmooze with the typically white academic males I need to in order to keep my academic career going and in order to keep getting my jobs (well, on a couple of occasions, I was interviewed by women, but while I’d like to say my success in those interviews came down to my native charm, realistically it’s hard to see how my class status, as somebody in the same category, didn’t help me a lot even in those interviews).

Lynne Kiesling I don’t read Left2Right, largely because I don’t like politics. But this >post from Elizabeth Anderson about Hayek’s arguments for procedural rules for public support to those who cannot “play the game” is insightful and thought-provokin…