4 ms·

I think the argument is that their labour is being subsidised which amounts to a benefit for BigSam. If we had a USB or negative income tax system then that be

I think the argument is that their labour is being subsidised which amounts to a benefit for BigSam. If we had a USB or negative income tax system then that benefit would be clearly spread across the whole population evenly but instead the stamp system has many rules and restrictions that allow Walmart to strategically benefit by both positioning the role at just the right amount to qualify for the benefit (but no more) and frustratingly by being the vendor honouring the stamps.

gruez 2y ago
>If we had a USB or negative income tax system then that benefit would be clearly spread across the whole population evenly But we do? The EITC is basically a negative income tax. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_credit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_credit >I think the argument is that their labour is being subsidised which amounts to a benefit for BigSam. Ironically negative income taxes are closer to a labor "subsidy", than food stamps, because they're contingent on income (ie. labor), unlike food stamps which don't give you more money if you make more.