Mason  🏃‍♂️ ✂️

This is a pretty narrow slice of all the possible effects of a change for the top marginal tax bracket. But let's zoom waaay out: should policy (including taxation) be based primarily on ideology or evidence? Serious non-gotcha question.

Agree. My key claims are that (a) economic policy outcome predictions broadly have a poor track record & the evidentiary value of modeling there is often illusory & (b) recent tech has created an absolute explosion of possible moves for actors, further increasing the difficulty

My view, generally, is this: start with an understanding of how incredibly advantageous the US's starting position is, a deep humility with regard to *anyone's* ability to make good predictions about increasingly complex systems, and move slowly + cautiously.

I think we have an overlapping Venn diagram. I am frankly befuddled about what to do (policywise) when evidence is less than definitive and ideologies collide. Maybe contingent legislation (ie start with approach A but if that fails switch to opposing approach B)?

IMO: don’t make dramatic populist moves based on unprovable assumptions when your current position is actually very strong. Public opinion may be that everything is on fire anyway, but this is unequivocally untrue

Encourage states to experiment. Propose modest tax hikes/reductions where they appear to be appropriate. Be extremely *extremely* skeptical of anyone who claims that extreme moves are necessary & guaranteed to produce positive effects

With you on experimentation. @AOC's proposal won't prevail but her making it is probably a good step in shaping the debate and discussion. Blindly being against tax increases is no better than blindly being for increased govt spending.

IMO: there will be reasonable proposals for tax hikes *and* cuts in the coming years, but extreme populist pitches do not improve the quality of the discussion.