Scott Alexander responds to criticisms of his tax bill posts, maintains that wealth distribution is more important than growth, and argues the bill likely won't benefit the poor as much as current spending. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses his thoughts on the recent tax bill, responding to criticisms of his previous posts. He admits he was wrong about there being no case for the bill and about CEO statements on using tax cuts. However, he maintains that economic growth is less important than wealth distribution, using an analogy about an effective altruist in a small town. He argues that in societies with high inequality, redistribution can be more beneficial than growth. Scott compares the potential benefits of the tax cut to other uses of government funds, concluding that it likely won't benefit the poor as much as maintaining current spending. He acknowledges some potential errors in his calculations but believes his overall point stands. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander defends his criticism of the GOP tax bill, arguing that even if taxes should be lowered, there are more effective ways to cut taxes that would directly benefit the poor and middle class. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to criticism of his previous article on the GOP tax bill, reaffirming his position that the bill is a poor approach to tax cuts. He argues that even if one believes taxes should be lower, there are better ways to implement tax cuts. Scott suggests that halving income taxes for the bottom 80% of earners would be a more effective alternative. He critiques the argument that corporate tax cuts boost economic growth, citing economist opinions, CEO statements, and historical trends. The post emphasizes that direct tax cuts or welfare programs for the poor and middle class would be more beneficial than the proposed corporate tax cuts. Shorter summary