Tom Walker:
> I sense a lot of associative confusion on the issue of
> "progressive" taxation. There are two connotations of progressive that are
> being mixed up here. There is also an intimate historical connection
> between the uses of the two connotations. One meaning of progressive is
> the arithmetic one in which rates become higher as ability to pay
> increases. The other has to do with the distributive justice that
> presumably results from a system of progressive taxation. What Roger, Max
> the two neo-classical economists and others seem to be arguing is that the
> hypothetical rate decrease increases distributive justice, therefore it is
> progressive (in the latter sense). I won't have anything to do with that
> argument because it brings in too many undefined variables. We might as
> well discuss the Laffer curve -- because that's where shoot from the hip
> backformations take us.
Typical email gambit, I see. Create a strawman position (Max, I, and others
aren't merely answering the "arithmetic" question about progressivity, but
"seem to be arguing" for some claim of distributive justice), attribute it to
others, and whack away. But you've added a novel twist, at least. That
strawman you've created is so unworthy, you say, you refuse to talk about it!
I can't think of anything further I could possibly want to say on the topic of
progressivity, Tom, including in response to whatever it is you can dream up
to say about my last two messages. Bye.
RO
