Max, you butterfly, you. I would agree that the outcome in the example you give seems "less unappealing". That is perhaps because we can imagine what it is like to have an income of $10,000 and what it would feel like to get a $1000 boost. We can also imagine how unimportant a $2000 windfall might seem if our income was $100,000. But we can play another numbers game and say that an allocation of $300 to Roger and $2700 to Max is still, just barely, "more progressive" than the original income ratio. And then we could argue (as Gene suggested) that given the difference in marginal utility of income between Roger and Max, the latter distribution would be subjectively "fairer" but still "progressive". Where do we want to draw the line on this? So far, it's 4-1 for me to stay. Unless the nays rally for a comeback, I'll stick around. > The income ratio in the example is ten to one. > Suppose the incomes were $10,000 and $100,000. > Then following the example, the poor person > gets $1,000, the rich $2,000. Does anyone > doubt the well-being of the poor one is > enhanced more than the rich, or that the > outcome is less unappealing? Tom Walker
