3 ms·
Your analogy is only true on average. In reality, most people are not net losers, but some (with high savings) stand to "lose" a lot.
by tantalor 7y ago
Your analogy is only true on average. In reality, most people are not net losers, but some (with high savings) stand to "lose" a lot.
- enchiridion 7y agoWhy do you say that? Because of inflation?
- __s 7y agoPeople who didn't have 18000 to begin with didn't lose 18000
- grecy 7y agoBut $18,000 in taxes they've paid (or will pay) that should have been spent on roads, schools, hospitals and more social services won't be. So everyone's life is $18,000 worse off. Do I have this wrong?
- __s 7y agoYes you have this wrong, because taxes are not a flat fee. However, you could argue that the tax money is equally shared across citizens at the time 18000 is taken, but now we're getting into arguing semantics
- throwaway_USD 7y ago>Your analogy is only true on average. It is not an analogy it is math and how we commonly reference and understand federal debt. If you look at the US nation debt clock (https://www.usdebtclock.org/ https://www.usdebtclock.org/) you will notice next to the total national debt is debt per citizen and then debt per taxpayer. Congress passed a $6T bill, that money is created as a future debt to all citizens, your point is obvious not all citizens are taxpayers, and not all taxpayers will have the same tax burdens (yet as you will notice we still look at tax revenue on a per capita basis also). There is a reason we don't look at the existing nation debt in those terms rather on a per capita basis. Either way none of that has anything to do with how Congress elected to indebt the Country and distribute the funds.