7 ms·

Following that argument, if we taxed them, their ways to not escape poverty would be even less sustainable. Victory! Ridiculous conclusion from a simplistic ar

• ctdonath 9y ago
  Way to miss the point by leaving out half of it. We're giving people reasons to stay in poverty: don't work, and their food/housing/healthcare will be provided for; start working, and all that gets yanked away and whatever is earned is diminished by taxation (direct and indirect). Faced with that, there's little reason to "escape poverty". "Stop subsidizing so much" does not equate to "start taxing them". I'm all for massive reductions in both subsidizing and taxation. Help the abject & deserving poor, yes; the rest should have their disincentives to work removed and their punishment by taxation relieved.
  • euyyn 9y ago
    You're talking now of an effective marginal rate > 100%, which is not what you said originally ("If you want less of something, tax it. If you want more of something, subsidize it."). I agree marginal rates should always be < 100% for the obvious reasons. I haven't seen numbers that it ever happens, but it is to be avoided in theory, yes.