If Karelis is right, taking $50 from a poor person won't hurt them at all - what's one more bee sting? Karelis's viewpoint is that they wouldn't have spent the

If Karelis is right, taking $50 from a poor person won't hurt them at all - what's one more bee sting? Karelis's viewpoint is that they wouldn't have spent the $50 to alleviate the bee sting. They would have spent it on something that did give them utility. That nice thing (that they really couldn't afford!) what is taken away with the extra taxation. That said, I think the point you make is reflected in a lot of real public policy. Poor areas get the worse public services, the most pollution, etc. They have so many bee stings that they can't be bothered to complain about one more.