Two Pillars

[foolmonkey]

In contrast to the previous post, wherein I attacked two of the longest standing American political organizations and the structures which created them, this post is a bit more positive

Comments

I think you are wrong about one of these

[candid]

This is very similar to Virginia Postrel's "Dynamism-Stasism" dichotomy.

But she would (and I do) disagree with the following:

Lowering Taxes (Preserving existing wealth) - Explorers say no. Preserves say yes.

Taxes are generally on income, not wealth. Changing the tax rate shouldn't really have any first order effects on "preserving existing wealth".

What lowering taxes does do is increase the benefit of creating new wealth. And creating new wealth is an "explorer" activity. Raising taxes (which e.g. makes it tougher to get a new business off the ground, and which funnels more money to the government, which tends to protect entrenched interests) is most surely a "preserver" activity.

Re: I think you are wrong about one of these

[foolmonkey]

Hmm. Yes, perhaps you are right.

Though in a sense, for a substantial number of people, raising taxes does have a first order effect on decreasing wealth, as many people live with small asset to income ratios.

Re: I think you are wrong about one of these

[foolmonkey]

Oh, and all of these arguments talk primarily about income taxes, which is admittedly what I was thinking of.

Property taxes and other such rent-seeking measures are much more of a first-order effect on income.

Re: I think you are wrong about one of these

[foolmonkey]

Gah. Property taxes have a first-order effect on wealth.

Re: I think you are wrong about one of these

[candid]

Only for people whose wealth is tied up in real estate. Not for those whose wealth is in trusts, or in the stock market, or in bonds, or in ...