3 ms·
That just doesn't add up. Even without progressive taxation, if you give everyone a flat increase in income then lower-income people come out ahead relative to
by lordlic 5y ago
That just doesn't add up. Even without progressive taxation, if you give everyone a flat increase in income then lower-income people come out ahead relative to where they were before wrt the average. It's directly a wealth transfer from classes paying more taxes per capita to those paying less taxes per capita. There's no hand-wavy economic argument about how, actually, lower-income people would be worse off if we gave them money.
- josephcsible 5y agoI'm not saying giving money to lower-income people hurts them. I'm saying the price increases will hurt them more than the money they get will help them.
- lordlic 5y agoIn other words, you're saying that it hurts them...
- dragonwriter 5y ago> I'm not saying giving money to lower-income people hurts them. I'm saying the price increases will hurt them more than the money they get will help them. For that to be true, the price increase of goods purchased by the poor induced by the additional income would have to be a greater multiple than the additional income of the poor; this doesn't make any kind of sense.
- CydeWeys 5y agoLogically speaking, this doesn't make any sense.