4 ms·

I think targeted redistribution will work better. If you want to protect the economy, take the people with excess wealth — providing no utility right now — and

I think targeted redistribution will work better. If you want to protect the economy, take the people with excess wealth — providing no utility right now — and give some of their wealth to those who cannot earn income during this crisis. It avoids the inflationary effects of printing money. You could accomplish this by raising taxes on the wealthy and sending the revenues directly to those who will lose their livelihoods and the small businesses which need to make rent to stay afloat. Obviously the political appetite to do this doesn't exist in the US, but I think it is easily the best solution.

ghouse 7y ago
That's why we (US, and much of the world) have progressive tax rates for earned income. Though in the US, we then give lower tax rates for unearned income...
- abvdasker 7y ago
  You alluded to this, but in reality effective tax rates in the US are actually flat or even regressive due to the favorable tax treatment of investment income as well as the massive deductions for property ownership: https://www.nber.org/papers/w20625 https://www.nber.org/papers/w20625
GarrisonPrime 7y ago
>take the people with excess wealth - providing no utility right now Most "excess wealth" is tied up in business and other investments. It's not like wealthy people just horde cash like Scrooge McDuck. That wealth is currently working to support the economy. It is hardly passive. Forcing the wealthy to pay increased tax on this value will cause them to close business functions, sell stocks, etc. Is that really wise at this point in time? To redistribute value from existing, proven formats into unspecific, theoretically useful ones? Theft is not immoral simply because it is unfair or mean. It's because it causes systemic dysfunction.