3 ms·
> Because the taxi driver could keep all of his money and still wouldn't make very much. So what does this have to do with income inequality? If you try to mak
by motorest 1y ago
> Because the taxi driver could keep all of his money and still wouldn't make very much.
So what does this have to do with income inequality? If you try to make a living from a business and the revenue you get from it is not enough to keep it afloat, what does it say about it's viability and income inequality?
- MathMonkeyMan 1y agoI was responding to the question: > So why not have the worker get/keep more of his money, instead of giving it to a different group of "others"? The quote is implying: "rather than tax people and give that money to others, just have people keep the money they make." My point is that this would not necessarily help the taxi driver much, since he probably doesn't pay much in taxes anyway. His issue is that his wage is not high enough. One could argue that taxi driving shouldn't exist or should be relegated to some impoverished underclass, or one could argue that the issue is with the taxi driver's lifestyle expectations and not with the low wage, or that taxi drivers should find other employment, thus reducing the supply of drivers and either raising wages or "rightsizing" the driver workforce. In any case, I don't agree with the parent poster's implication that lowering taxes is a viable alternative to tax-funded universal basic income. Lowering taxes benefits most those who pay a lot of taxes, and those are the people who are least directly affected by the removal of tax-funded welfare programs. Sending the money to "others" is the point. Keep in mind that the taxi driver is just a made up example, and I myself am not sold on the idea of universal basic income.