What if your model takes into account the fact that if income taxes are high enough, startups stop happening? These economists tried it, and found the optimal tax rate is 29%. https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty-research/sites/faculty-research/files/finance/Macro%20Workshop/toptax.pdf …
-
-
Replying to @paulg
When marginal tax rates were higher, the US put men on the moon, designed atomic bombs, commercial jets, ARPANet, the credit card, the transistor, communications satellites, LEDs, Hypertext, CDs. Technical innovation was financed more by the state/military vs private investors.
21 replies 21 retweets 247 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @paulg
My perspective as an immigrant entrepreneur: If this is this where US innovation is going, I would immediately move with my family to a country with a lower marginal tax rate!
7 replies 0 retweets 22 likes -
Replying to @AleResnik @paulg
An examination of multiple tax level changes in California suggests that wealthy people are deeply enmeshed in the social fabric and infrastructure that generates their wealth and therefore don’t engage in tax flight as much as one would think. https://inequality.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/millionaire-migration-california-impact-top-tax-rates.pdf …
2 replies 0 retweets 67 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @paulg
How I see it: What’s my incentive to stay far from my native Buenos Aires, sacrifice family time for years, to get creamed on the upside? Instead: let me keep my upside and incentivize philanthropy heavily.
7 replies 0 retweets 15 likes -
Why on Earth would you sacrifice living with your family and being in a country you love just to make a lot of money if you plan on turning around and giving most of it away?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
What is the journey is fun? But also again, philanthropy has consistently been 2% of GDP in America over many decades.https://www.philanthropy.com/article/The-Stubborn-2-Giving-Rate/154691 …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Sure, but *sacrificing your family* for the sake of fun? This actually gets in my larger point, which is it the non-monetary rewards of entrepreneurial success are, by definition, insensitive to tax rates. Artists and musicians are very familiar with this.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @alexqgb @kimmaicutler and
I actually think heavy reliance on philanthropy is bad, especially if it goes beyond the token amounts that we are see now and becomes a very significant part of the economy. Reason being, this gives the "givers" extraordinary and largely unaccountable power.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @alexqgb @kimmaicutler and
Also, it's well-known in non-profit circles the raising money for maintenance is extremely difficult. Everybody wants to open a museum wing. Nobody wants to keep the gutters clear and the floors clean.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
they also have to contort their messaging, positioning for donors. Wealthy donors are their real customers, and that in aggregate distorts who the non-profit sector actually serves and what kinds of policy ideas it generates.
-
-
Exactly. It should be clear to everybody that the Koch's support of the American Museum of Natural History and the Smithsonian was not due to their support for public understanding of science. Quite the opposite, they were spending money to cut it off at the pass.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @alexqgb @kimmaicutler and
Meanwhile, back at the Perot Museum of Nature and Science in Dallas, the public learns about the wonders of geology...through the prism of oil drilling
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes - 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.