4 ms·
> Or are you arguing that regressive taxes are more optimum/more effective? We're not talking about regressive taxes, but the effects of regulation on prices.
by CharlesColeman 7y ago
> Or are you arguing that regressive taxes are more optimum/more effective?
We're not talking about regressive taxes, but the effects of regulation on prices. My view on this narrow slice of policy is that it's better that private employers bear the full cost of supporting an employee at a reasonable standard of living. Welfare's fine for those who are unemployed or disabled (and maybe those who are in a time-limited transition period), but it shouldn't be a supplement to wages except in limited cases.
- bhupy 7y ago> My view on this narrow slice of policy is that it's better that private employers bear the full cost of supporting an employee at a reasonable standard of living But employers just pass that cost onto the consumer. This results in, in effect, a regressive tax, because these higher prices are paid by the rich and the poor alike. In contrast, using welfare to ensure that these workers don't go hungry ensures that the workers essentially end up with the same amount of money as they would have with the wage floor, but having the rich pay for it disproportionately (via progressive income/capital gains taxes).