> it seems like a policy that basically subsidizes lower COL locations. I would put it differently. I would have said it is a policy that is (slightly) less "p

> it seems like a policy that basically subsidizes lower COL locations. I would put it differently. I would have said it is a policy that is (slightly) less "progressive" in high cost-of-living areas than it is high cost-of-living areas. (Where "progressive" means those with high incomes paying a larger percentage of their income in taxes.)