> This amounts to taxing the poor instead of the rich not really, when you consider who must be paying for the original 10000 fun bucks. the person in your exa

> This amounts to taxing the poor instead of the rich not really, when you consider who must be paying for the original 10000 fun bucks. the person in your example is still achieving an effectively negative tax rate. > and is likely to not incentivize work as much you might like. this much I agree with. the 50% falloff is probably much too steep.