| The high turnover of the top 1%[0][1] would suggest that there is a higher standard to be met to justify government intervention to redistribute the fruits of luck. Since the income and wealth are transient, it would seem necessary to show that the government's redistribution leads to a better outcome than time's. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on this. I'd assume that the argument would be that the government achieves equity more quickly, but at a cost. It would be interesting to see the discount rate to justify redistribution now rather than redistribution with time. The alternative argument that comes to mind is that while the people move over time, there is a constant influx of new luck-wealth to replace the old luck-wealth such that, though it is different money, there is a permanent "luck fund" of sorts that should be drained on a regular basis, else we will have a permanent inefficient "luck fund". Again, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. [0]http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/04/mob... [1]I don't have the time to find more sources, but there is indeed quite a bit of churn in the top income brackets, and we see similar in wealth brackets - these are not static categories of people. |