3 ms·
'repulsively regressive' is an uninteresting cliched opinion. How about explaining why you take this view taking into account that the tax means that someone ha
by vixen99 10y ago
'repulsively regressive' is an uninteresting cliched opinion. How about explaining why you take this view taking into account that the tax means that someone has less money to play with - could be employees, shareholders, consumers who pay higher prices for the goods produced or all three groups who might otherwise gain from business expansion. The money could go into a pot of course but it's used in the same ways ultimately.
- pikzen 10y agoBecause it doesn't happen. Employees are not going to be paid more. Shareholders are going to get more money, except that's it's going to be negligible if you're a small shareholder. Consumers are still going to pay the same price because they are already paying that price. Source: the last fifty years. At the very least.
- banach 10y ago> 'repulsively regressive' is an uninteresting cliched opinion. Note that "regressive" is technically an accurate description of the suggested policy. > The money could go into a pot of course but it's used in the same ways ultimately. It is not necessarily used in the same way. One reason why progressive taxation is both socially and economically beneficial is that poor people spend a larger proportion of their income, and thus generate demand. The same money, given to the rich, will largely end up as savings.