Re 2: I'm not sure if you're trolling here. It's a fantastically complicated question and the economics has barely scratched the service. Strong proponents either side here, but there is certainly a lot of research linking inequality to poor social outcomes (higher crime, poor health) which in turn we tend to think negatively impact growth.
Re:An open letter to Paul Graham
by angryasian on Tuesday January 05, 2016 @03:28PM
(#10845783)
point 1 would be true in an ideal world, but at least in the US, its proven that millionaires/billionaires pay less taxes than the middle class. This is true of corporations as well.
also to add : in reality its just not true. Areas with higher property taxes in affluent areas, do have access to better quality public services. In many ways separate but equal is still reflected in public services that are accessible to communities
You said it (2), it must be true.
1. It's possible, however very unlikely, especially given what we've seen so far.
2. It very much is, as inequality limits what sectors of the population can grow.
4. PG wouldn't be in a position to have that comparison made if it wasn't for the services given by the State. Unless you're trying to say that he would have been just as successful growing up in the middle of Somalia.
2. growth is not affected by inequality (yep, I said it, it's true too)
3. from 1 and 2 follows that we need to agree on the minimum amount of service (some say it should be higher, fair enough, how much? where? why?), not of obtuse taxation... just because they are too rich...
4. quick question: what gives you more growth? 1$ invested by PG, or 1$ given to the State. Memo: PG. Note: growth is the only way out of: 1. poverty (look at historical data; 2. population implosion and aging in the next 40-50 years (just check the numbers)