I've read the summary and it does not change anything. > These benefits are actually larger than the initial increase in tax burden in step 1 This isn't clear

I've read the summary and it does not change anything. > These benefits are actually larger than the initial increase in tax burden in step 1 This isn't clear at all. I suspect this is only true in a specific set of circumstances, not as a universal rule. > You could only do this until you run out of tax dollars being paid by poor people The article is talking about the 50th and 99th percentiles. If what you're saying is true, the government should reduce taxes on the 50th percentile household all the way to 0%, and fund this tax cut entirely by increasing taxes on those who are more wealthy. And if what you're saying is true, such a change in tax policy would increase disposable income for the 99th percentile. There isn't a single serious economist who believes the above. Even people like Sanders who would advocate for such a tax policy, are arguing for it from a fairness perspective. Not a "this will make the rich even richer" argument, which is what you're implying.